foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1890.—thou chek fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956
dk 31½ dh /kkjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh 'kfDrdkar nkl] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx dks
Jh jktho egf"kZ ds LFkku ij rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd
mDr fuxe ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 14@3@2003&chek&IV]
eqfnrk feJk] funs'kd ¼chek½
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1890.— In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31
of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Shaktikanta Das, Secretary, Department of Economic
Affairs as Member of the said Corporation vice Shri Rajiv
Mehrishi with immediate effect till further orders.
[F. No. 14/3/2003-Ins. IV]
MUDITA MISHRA, Director (Insurance)
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1891.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1955
dk 23½ dh /kkjk 19 ds [k.M ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsanzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lqJh vatqfy fpc nqXxy] lfpo] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=ky; dks MkWñ gleq[k vf<;k ds LFkku ij rRdky
izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds dsUnzh;
funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 7@2@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2015
S.O. 1891.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (e) of Section 19 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955
(23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby nominates
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 40]
ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 27—vDrwcj 3] 2015] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 5—vkf'ou 11] 1937
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 27—OCTOBER 3, 2015, SATURDAY/ASVINA 5—ASVINA 11, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
4006 GI/2015
(3943)
3944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Ms. Anjuly Chib Duggal, Secretary, Department of Financial
Services, Ministry of Finance, to be a Director on the Central
Board of Directors of State Bank of India with immediate
effect and until further orders vice Dr. Hasmukh Adhia.
[F.No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1892.—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/kfu;e] 1934 dh
/kkjk 8 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼?k½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lqJh vatqfy fpc nqXxy] lfpo]
foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=ky; dks MkWñ gleq[k vf<;k ds LFkku ij
rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds
dsUnzh; cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 7@2@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2015
S.O. 1892.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby
nominates Ms. Anjuly Chib Duggal, Secretary, Department
of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, to be a Director
on the Central Board of Directors Reserve Bank of India
with immediate effect and until further orders vice
Dr. Hasmukh Adhia.
[F.No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1893.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ
micaè½Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lqJh ,Wuk jk;]
la;qDr lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys
vkns'kksa rd] Jh vuwi o/kkou ds LFkku ij cSad vkQ bafM;k ds
funs'kd e.My esa ljdkjh ukfefr funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 7@2@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1893.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
hereby nominates Ms. Anna Roy, Joint Secretary,
Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee
Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of India with
immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Anup
Wadhawan.
[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
¼jktLo foHkkx½
¼fgUnh vuqHkkx&2½
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1894.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds v/khu dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd] lhek
'kqYd ,oa lsok dj vk;qDr ukfld&I ds dk;kZy; dks] ftuds
80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Z lk/kd Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh¼fgUnh&2½]
pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE)
(HINDI SECTION-2)
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1894.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies
the Office of the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Commissioner, Nasik-I, Under the Department of Revenue,
where more than 80% staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD(Hindi-2)]
CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1895.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds v/khu dk;kZy; vk;qDr] dsUnzh;
mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsok dj vads{k.k vk;qDrky;] t;iqj vkSj blds
v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa vFkkZr~ mik;qDr@lgk;d vk;qDr dsUnzh; mRikn
'kqYd vads{k.k o`Ùk&t;iqj&izFke] t;iqj f}rh;] vyoj] fHkokM+h]
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3945
mn;iqj] tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy; dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd
deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh ¼fgUnh&2½]
pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1895.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies
the Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service
Tax Auditing Commissionerate Jaipur & Its subordinate
offices i.e. office of Deputy Commissioner/Assistant
Commissioner, Central Excise auditing circle-Jaipur-I,
Jaipur-II, Alwar, Bhiwadi, Udaipur, Jodhpur, Under the
Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F.No. E-11017/1/2015-AD(Hindi-2)]
CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1896.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] egkjk"Vª ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] eqEcbZ dh i=@
vf/klwpuk lañ ,evkbZ,l 2015@lhvkj&1413@ihvks,y&11 fnukad
18 flrEcj] 2015 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls vijk/k la[;k 406@2015
varxZr /kkjk 120&ch] 364] 302] 307] 328] 201] 202] 203 Hkñnñlañ]
1860 o /kkjk 3¼25½ 'kL= vf/kfu;e] 'khuk cksjk dh gR;k ls lEcfUèr
Fkkuk [kkj] eqEcbZ rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa ;k mlls lEc)
iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM~;a= rFkk mlh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd;s x;s
vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mðr fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k
djus ds lEcU/k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa
vkSj vkf/kdkfjrk o foLrkj lEiw.kZ egkjk"Vª jkT; ij djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 228@45@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015
S.O. 1896.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State of
Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Mumbai,
vide Notification No. MIS 2015/CR-1413/POL-11 dated 18th
Sept. 2015, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of
the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to
the whole of the State of Maharashtra for investigation of
Khar Police Station Crime No. 406/2015 U/s 120-B, 364, 302,
307, 328, 201, 202, 203 IPC and u/s 3(25) of Arms Act relating
to the murder of Sheena Bora and the abetment and
conspiracy in relation to the above mentioned offences.
[F. No. 228/45/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
vk;q"k ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1897.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] vk;q"k ea=ky; ds
iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr
ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
^^eksjkjth nslkbZ jk"Vªh; ;ksx laLFkku] ubZ fnYyh**
[lañ bZ&11018@1@2013&vk;q"k ¼jkñHkkñ½]
dqanu flag Vaxf.k;ka] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015
S.O. 1897.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central
Government hereby notifies the following office under the
administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, wherein
more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge
of Hindi.
"Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga,
New Delhi".
[No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH(O.L.)]
KUNDAN SINGH TANGANIYA, Jt. Director (O.L.)
3946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1898.—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkSj fuEufyf[kr
la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
mDr vuqlwph esa—
¼d½ ^^eqacbZ fof'ofo|ky;@egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk,a* vkxs
dkWye ¼2½ ds :i esa mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds
:i esa mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
(2)
(3)
^^ekLVj vkQ ltZjh
,e,l ¼vkFkksZisfMDl½
¼vkFkksZisfMDl**½
¼;g 2003 esa vFkok mlds ckn uoy vkS"kf/k laLFkku] vkbZ,u,p,l] vf'ouh] eqacbZ] egkjk"V] esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^^eqacbZ fo'ofo|ky;@egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª** }kjk
Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh% 1-
LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, Lohd`r ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh] ftlds ckn bldk
uohdj.k fd;k tk,xkA
2-
mi&/kkjk 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj
ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk fujiokn :i ls cUn gks tk,xkA
[lañ ;w&12012@505@2015&,ebZ ¼ih-II½]
vfer fcLokl] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2015
S.O. 1898.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following
further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule—
(a) against “Mumbai University/Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra” under the heading
‘Recognised Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto
under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery
MS (Orthopaedics)
(Orthopaedics)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Mumbai University/
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students being
trained at Institute of Navel Medicine, INHS, Aswini, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or after 2003).
Note to all:
1.
The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years,
upon which it shall have to be renewed.
2.
Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause 4 shall invariably result in
stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U-12012/505/2015-ME(P-II)]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3947
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1899.—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ¼la'kks/ku½ v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dk fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks iquxZBu fd;k x;k Fkk(
tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½¼[k½ ds izko/kku ds vuqlj.k esa
fuEufyf[kr fpfdRldksa dks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa fnukad 05-11-2013 dh vf/klwpuk }kjk jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] cSaxyksj dk
izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k Fkk%—
Øe lañ
fo'ofo|ky; dk uke
fuokZfpr lnL; dk C;kSjk
9-
jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku
(i)
MkWñ dsñ,lñ Jhizdk'k] dqyifr] vkjth;w,p,l
fo'ofo|ky;] cSaxyksj
(ii)
MkWñ ,ñ,eñ txnh'k] izksQslj vkSj vusLFksfl;k v/;{k rFkk fpfdRlk v/kh{kd] dkfMZ;ksoSLdqyj
foKku ,oa vuqla/kku] cSaxyksj
(iii)
MkWñ f'kokuan ,lñ fHkekyh] ,lksfl,V izksQslj] cky jksx fo'ks"kK] egknsokIik jkeiqj esfMdy dkWyst]
xqycxkZ
tcfd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dukZVd] cSaxyksj us MkWñ eatqukFk] lgk;d izksQslj] cSaxyksj esfMdy dkWyst vkSj vuqla/kku rFkk MkWñ ,pñMhñ
jaxukFk] ,lksfl,V izksQslj] vkWFkksZisfMDl] dseisxksMk fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku }kjk nk;j fjV vihy lañ 5541&42@2013 dks fnukad 12-03-2014
ds vius vkns'k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 30-07-2013 ds pquko uksfVl fujLr dj fn;k] vkSj LokLF; fo'ofo|ky; }kjk djk, x,
pquko dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fn;k FkkA
tcfd MkWñ vkjñ fulkjxk] izksQslj] foHkkxk/;{k] cky jksx vk/khpqupukfxjh fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku] e/; izns'k( lnL;] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk
ifj"kn~] tks jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky; dk izfrfuf/kRo dj jgs Fks] us mPp U;k;ky;] dukZVd] cSaxyksj ds fnukad 12-03-2014 ds
vkns'k ds f[kykQ ekuuh; Hkkjrh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l,yih¼lh½ lañ 10581&10582@2014 nk;j dh FkhA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;
us vius fnukad 20-01-2015 ds vkns'k }kjk fnukad 28-04-2015 ds vkns'k ds lkFk ifBr fnukad 23-04-2014 ds vius iwoZ vkns'k dks bl lanHkZ
esa la'kksf/kr fd;k Fkk fd tgka rd ;kfpdkdrkZ MkWñ vkjñ fulkjxk dk laca/k gS fookfnr fu.kZ; dk izpkyu vkLFkfxr jgsxkA
blfy,] vc ekuuh; dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 12-03-2014 ds vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa MkWñ dsñ,lñ Jhizdk'k] MkWñ ,ñ,eñ txnh'k
vkSj MkWñ f'kokuan ,lñ fHkekyh rRdky izHkko ls jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky; dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~
ds lnL; ugha jgsaxsA
[lañ oh&11013@05@2015&,ebZih-I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% ewy vf/klwpuk Hkkjr ds jkti= esa fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dkñvkñ 138 }kjk izdkf'kr gqbZ Fkh] vkSj blesa vafre la'kks/ku
Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ¼la'kks/ku½ f}rh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk 11½ }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2015
S.O. 1899.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1)(b) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of
1956) the following doctors were elected as member of the Medical Council of India representing Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences, Bangalore vide notification dated 05.11.2013 in Gazette of India:
S.No. Name of the University
Details of the Elected Member
9.
Rajiv Gandhi University
(i) Dr. K.S. Sriprakash, Vice-Chancellor, RGUHS
of Health Sciences,
Bangalore
(ii) Dr. A.M. Jagadeesh, Professor and Head of Anaesthesia and Medical Superintendent of
Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Bangalore.
(iii) Dr. Shivanand S. Bhimalli, Associate Professor of Paediatrics, Mahadevappa Rampure
Medical College, Gulbarge.
3948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Whereas the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore vide its order dated 12.03.2014 allowed the Writ Appeals
No. 5541-42/2013 filed by Dr. Manjunath, Assistant Professor, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute and
Dr. H.D. Ranganath, Associate Professor of Orthopaedics, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences and quashed the
notice election dated 30.07.2013 and declared the election conducted by the Health University as invalid.
Whereas Dr. R. Nisarga, Professor, HoD of Paediatrics, Adhichunchnagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya District,
Member of Medical Council of India representing Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences files an SLP (C) Nos. 10581-
10582/2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 12.03.2014 of the High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 20.01.2015 modified their earlier order dated 23.04.2014 read
with the order dated 28.04.2015 to the effect that the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed only in so far
as the petitioner—Dr. R. Nisarga is concerned.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the order dated 12.03.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dr. K.S. Sriprakash,
Dr. A.M. Jagadeesh and Dr. Shivanand S. Bhimali shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of
India representing Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences with immediate effect.
[No. V-11013/05/2015-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,
1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
'kqf)i=
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1900.—bl ea=ky; ds fnukad 27-7-2009 dh iwoZ vf/klwpuk lañ ;wñ 12012@25@2009&,ebZ¼ih-II) ds Øe esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn}kjk
mfYyf[kr vgZrk ds ikB;Øe esa dkyst ds izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk nkf[kyk jksds tkus ds dkj.k Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ds ijke'kZ ls mDr vf/kfu;e
dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkxs vkSj fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS( ^^ukjk;.k fpfdRlk dkyst] usYyksj] vkU/kz izns'k** ds le{k ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rksjs ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd
ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr ;ksX;rk vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
(1)
(2)
^^{k; jksx ,oa o{k jksx esa
MhVhlhMh
fMIyksek**
¼;g dsoy 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2011&12 rd izos'k izkIr Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^,fuLFkhfl;k esa fMIyksek**
Mh,
¼;g dsoy 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2011&12 rd izos'k izkIr Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^peZ jksx] ;kSu jksx vkSj
fMMhoh,y
dq"B jksx esa fMIyksek**
¼;g dsoy 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2011&12 rd izos'k izkIr Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^euf'pfdRlk esa fMIyksek**
Mhih,e
¼;g dsoy 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2011&12 rd izos'k izkIr Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^vksIFkyeksykWth esa fMIyksek** Mhvks
¼;g dsoy 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2011&12 rd izos'k izkIr Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
uksV% dkyst izkf/kdkfj;ksa us ;g opui= fn;k gS fd 'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2012&13 ls mijksDr of.kZr ikB~;Øe esa mUgksaus fdlh Hkh Nk= dks nkf[kyk ugha
fn;k gSA
[lañ ;w&12012@233@2015&,ebZ-I]
Mhñ ohñ dsñ jko] voj lfpo
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3949
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015
S.O. 1900.—In continuation of this Ministry’s earlier notification No. U-12012/25/2009-ME(P-II) dated 27.7.2009, the
Central Government, in consultation with the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in
the First Schedule to the said Act, due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities in the qualifications mentioned
against “Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Diploma in Tuberculosis
DTCD
and Chest Diseases”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of
Health Sciences, Vijayawada to the students admitted upto the academic session 2011-12
only).
“Diploma in Anaesthesia”
DA
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of
Health Sciences, Vijayawada to the students admitted upto the academic session 2011-12
only).
“Diploma in Dermatology,
DDVL
Venereology & Leprosy”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of
Health Sciences, Vijayawada to the students admitted upto the academic session 2011-12
only).
“Diploma in Psychiatry”
DPM
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of
Health Sciences, Vijayawada to the students admitted upto the academic session 2011-12
only).
“Diploma in Ophthalmology”
DO
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of
Health Sciences, Vijayawada to the students admitted upto the academic session 2011-12
only).
Note: The college authorities have given undertaking that they have not admitted any student in the above mentioned
courses from the academic year 2012-2013.
[No. U-12012/233/2015-ME-I]
D.V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1901.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ofj"B v/kh{kd]
Mkd?kjksa vkSj nwljksa] fgekpy izns'k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 99@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@49@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2015
S.O. 1901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 99/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Senior Superintendent of Post
Offices & others, Himachal Pradesh and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 11/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/49/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 99/2013. Reference No. L-40012/49/2013-
IR(DU) dated 05.09.2013.
Shri Arvind Kumar son of Late Shri Bam Dev, resident of
Village Dulehra, Post Office, Tehsil and District Hamirpur
(HP).
Workman
Versus
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hamirpur
(HP) Himachal Pradesh.
3950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
2. The Chief Post Master General, Zonal Office, HP Circle,
The Mall, Shimla-171009
Respondents
APPEARANCE
For the workman:
Shri R.P. Rana Advocate
For the management:
Shri Sanjiv Sharma Advocate
AWARD
Passed on 08.09.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/49/2013-IR(DU) dated 05.09.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Sr. Supdt. of Post Office,
Hamirpur in terminating the services of Shri Arvind
Kumar son of Shri Bam Dev w.e.f. 1.12.2011 is legally
just and valid? To what relief the workman is entitled
to and from which date?"
2. The workman filed claim statement in which it is
pleaded that he is BA pass and joined as GDSMD (Gramin
Dak Sewak Mail Delivery) in Head Post Office Hamirpur
Himachal Pradesh on 6.12.2006 on daily wage basis and
continued to work up to 30.11.2011 and his services were
terminated on 1.12.2011 without any notice or order of
termination, payment of retrenchment compensation
though he had completed 240 days of service in each
calendar year. It is further pleaded that prior to joining of
the workman as GDSMD on daily wages, Shri Daramu was
working as GDSMD and he was appointed regular group D
post in Head office Hamirpur, therefore, the appointment
of the workman was against regular vacancy on daily wages.
The workman worked as such for five years with the hope
that he will be adjusted as regular GDSMD. The workman
prayed that the management be directed to reinstate him
into service as GSDMD w.e.f. 1.12.2011 with continuity of
service and full back wages.
3. The management filed written statement in which
it is pleaded that workman worked as outsider paid
substitute in place of Shri Dharmoo Ram Gramin Dak Sewak
(GDSMD-II) Hamirpur HPO purely at his own risk and
responsibility from time to time during the period from
6.12.2006 to 30.11.2011 as Shri Dharmoo Ram GDSMD II
engaged paid substitute against vacant post of group D/
postman at Hamirpur HO. The workman was never
appointed by the department. The arrangement of paid
substitute was terminated on 1.12.2011 as the regular
incumbent Shri Dharmoo Ram GDSMD-II joined his duty
back. Therefore, there was no need to give him any notice
prior to his termination as he was engaged nominee
substitute on the clear understanding that he will be
discharged on joining of regular incumbent who provided
him as substitute. Moreover the contention of completing
240 days by the workman in a year is not applicable as he
was engaged on substitute basis at his risk and
responsibility. Therefore, it is prayed by the management
that the claim statement deserves to be dismissed with
costs being devoid of merits.
4. In evidence the workman filed his own affidavit as
W1. The workman also relied upon documents Ex. W2 and
W3. The management in evidence filed affidavit of Bali
Ram Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Hamirpur Division
Hamirpur as Ex. M1 and relied on documents Ex. M2 to M6.
5. I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence
and record.
6. During arguments, the learned counsel for the
workman submitted that the workman was engaged on
6.12.2006 and worked up to 30.11.2011 when all of a sudden
his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.12.2011 without
payment of retrenchment compensation, one month pay in
lieu of notice and without assigning any reason although
the workman had put in more than 240 days of service in
each calendar year. On the other hand, the plea of the
management is that the workman was engaged to work as
outsider paid substitute in place of Shri Dharmoo Ram
Gramin Dak Sewak (GDSMD-II) purely at his own risk and
responsibility from time to time during the period 6.12.2006
to 30.11.2011 as per rules of the postal department. There is
no violation of any provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947 as the workman was never engaged by the
department. The arrangement of paid substitute was
terminated on 1.12.2011 as the regular incumbent Shri
Dharmoo Ram GDSMD-II joined his duty back. Therefore,
there is no merit in the claim of the workman Arvind Kumar.
7. The workman joined on 6.12.2006 as substitute in
place of Dharamu Ram and worked up to 30.11.2011. He
was not allowed to work w.e.f. 1.12.2011 as the incumbent
Dharmoo Ram GDSMD came back to join duty. In this
context WW 1 Arvind Kumar workman himself admitted in
cross-examination that no appointment letter was given at
the time of appointment. He also admitted that it is correct
that he was engaged as substitute against Dharmoo Ram.
He also stated that he was removed from the job. No
termination letter was given to the workman. Respondent
management admitted this fact that workman was a
substitute working in place of Dharmoo Ram and workman
Arvind Kumar was engaged to work as outsider paid
substitute in place of Shri Dharmoo Ram Gramin Dak Sewak
(GDSMD-II) against vacant post purely at his own risk and
responsibility from time to time during the period 6.12.2006
to 30.11.2011 as per rules of the postal department. The
management also mentioned in its written reply that a
substitute has no legal right as far as regularization is
concerned the recruitment rules do not provide for
recognition of past service that may have been rendered
against any post.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3951
8. This fact has not been disputed by the management
that workman worked from 6.12.2006 to 30.11.2011. The
management has cited circular letter No. 17-115/2001-GDS
dated 21.10.2002 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of
Communication and IT, Department of Posts New Delhi. In
this circular letter at Page 4 in para 8, clause ii (c) & (d)
provide as under:—
(c) Continuation of substitute arrangements beyond
180 days at a stretch, may only be allowed by the authority
next higher to the appointing authority, and only in
exceptional cases where action has been initiated for regular
appointment, if justified by work load and financial norms.
(d) No substitute arrangement shall continue beyond
one year. Hence regular/alternative arrangements must be
made during the period beyond 180 days to ensure this. If
for any unavoidable reason a substitute arrangement is
required to be continued beyond one year, specific approval
of the Head of Circle will be necessary for reasons to be
recorded by the concerned authority.
9. It is admitted position that the management has
not followed as mentioned above in the circular letter of
the department and the workman was allowed to continue
beyond 180 days. Admittedly the workman Arvind Kumar
continued working for about five years. So far the
reinstatement or regularization of the services of the
workman are concerned, the reinstatement cannot be
allowed in view of the decision dated 10.3.2003 of Central
Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench in the case of Sanjib
K.R. Mandal Vs. Union of India and Ors. and judgment
dated 13.06.2003 of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in
W.P.C.T. No. 58 of 2003 in the case of Sanjib Kumar Mandal
Vs. Union of India and four others.
10. The workman cited the judgment dated 28.01.2014
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal
No. 4980 of 2014 Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL & anr. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment has held that there
may be reasons for not allowing reinstatement. In the case
in hand it is admitted fact that workman has worked for
almost five years as substitute and the rules of the
department do not permit for reinstatement or regularization.
The circular letter quoted above clearly mentioned that
substitute cannot be allowed to work for more than 180
days and in case it is for any unavoidable reason a
substitute arrangement is required to be continued beyond
one year, specific approval of the Head of Circle will be
necessary for reasons to be recorded by the concerned
authority.
11. The evidence and submissions led by both the
parties do not indicate that the necessary approval of the
competent authority was obtained for allowing the
substitute (Arvind Kumar) workman to work beyond 180
days.
12. Considering the entite facts and circumstances
of the case, the prayer of the workman for reinstatement
cannot be allowed as incumbent rejoin his duty and there
was no post available. In lieu of reinstatement the workman
should be awarded a suitable compensation. Thus in the
facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 50,000/- should be
paid by the management to the workman as compensation
in lieu of reinstatement. The management is directed to pay
Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) to the workman within
two months from the date of the publication of the award.
13. The reference is answered accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
8-9-2015.—
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1902.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1271@2006½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@130@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th Septemeber, 2015
S.O. 1902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1271/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
28/09/2015.
[No. L-42012/130/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1271/2006
Registered on 9.8.2006
1.
All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan
(Regd) through Zonal Secretary CPWD Store Building
Sector 7B, Chandigarh.
2.
Sh. Dhan Puru, Chowkidar C/O All India CPWD
(MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd) through Zonal
3952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Secretary, CPWD Store Building, Sector 7B,
Chandigarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Union of India Through the Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel &
Training, North Block, New Delhi.
2.
Director General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3.
The Executive Engineer, Chandigarh Central
Division II CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A,
Chandigarh.
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. S.D. Sharma Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 22.9.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/
130/2005IR(CM-II) Dated 31.7.2006, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and
Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referfred to as 'Act') has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,
Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of Sh.
Dhan Puru, w.e.f. 19.4.1984 to 16.3.1993 and action of
not extending consequential benefits is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman (claimant
No. 2) appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading
that he joined the management as Baildar on Muster Roll
on 19.4.1984. His services were regularized w.e.f. 16.3.1993.
That he is entitled to regularization of services with effect
from the day he joined as Baildar on muster roll i.e. 19.4.1984
in view of the judgment of 'Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder
Singh Vs. CPWD reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584
and he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like
increment, uniform allowance, medical facilities etc. and
counting of service for the grant of promotion and service
benefit of 12 years/ 24 years w.e.f. 19.4.1984. That the action
of the management in not regularizing the services w.e.f.
19.4.1984 is illegal.
Respondent filed written reply pleading that the
Hon'ble Apex Court passed the order for payment of equal
pay for equal work and the same has been given to the
workman from the date of his appointment. That the Hon'ble
Apex Court only advised the Government to take
appropriate action to regularize the service of daily-rated
workers who were working continuously for more than six
months. In pursuance of the said order, the Government of
India framed policy and when the post was created the
services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 16.3.1993.
That he is not entitled to claim allowance etc. prior thereto.
That he is not entitled to regularization of service w.e.f.
19.4.1984.
In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated his case as
set out in the claim petition and further pleaded that the
Directorate of Horticulure regularized the services of
workers immediately and even the service of Sob Nath and
Krishan Pal were regularized w.e.f. 18.2.1986 and 5.12.1988.
That he is also entitled to for regularization of services
from the date he joined the service i.e. 19.4.1984.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of its case, Sh. Dhan Puru (claimant No. 2)
appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating
the case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has exaimed Sh.
Jaswant Singh, Executive Engineer who filed his affidavit
reiterating the stand as taken in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the
workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the
management.
Learned counsel for the workman carried me through
the judgment of Surinder Singh's case (supra) and
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court asked the
Government to regularize the services of temporary daily
wages from the date of their appointment, and as such, the
workman is entitled for regularization of services w.e.f.
19.4.1984, when he joined the management as Baildar. He
has further carried me through the copy of the judgment
passed in LPA No. 622 of 2001 decided on 10.4.2013 titled
The Director General of Works Vs. Regional Labour
Commissioner and Others and submitted that the judgment
of Surinder Singh's case (supra) has been implemented
and the workers have been paid the arrears of pay etc., and
as such, the present workman is also entitled to the
regularization of the services from the date of his initial
appointment.
Opposing this contention it was argued by the
learned counsel for the management that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued directions to pay the same salary
and allowances to all the daily-rated employees as are paid
to regular and permanent employees and that direction
have been complied with. He has further submitted that
the Hon'ble Apex Court only asked the government to
initiated action to regularize the services of those
employees who have been in continuous employment for
more than six months on the date of the judgment. In
pursuance of this order of the Apex Court, the Government
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3953
initiated action and when the post was created, the service
of the workman was regularized w.e.f. 16.3.1993 and workman
cannot claim regularizatio of his services w.e.f. 19.4.1984 as
no such direction was issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court
for the regularization of the services of the daily-rated
workers from the date of their initial appointment.
I have considered the respective contentions.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs. CPWD
reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584 observed as
follow:—
“We allow both the writ petitions and direct the
respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case
(supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily
rated employees, to pay the same salary and
allowances as are paid to regular and permanent
employees with effect from the date when they were
respectively employed. The respondents will pay to
each of the petitioners a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards
their costs. We also record our regret that many
employees are kept in service on a temporary daily
wage basis without their services being regularized.
We hope that the government will take appropriate
action to regularize the services of all those who
have been in continuous employment for more than
six months.
A persual of the order shows that the Hon'ble Apex
Court directed the Government to pay the same salary and
allowances to daily-rated employees as are paid to regular
and permanent employees w.e.f. the date when they were
employed. It further observed that the Government would
initiate action to regularize the services of the workmen
who have been in continuous employment for more than
six months.The Hon'ble Apex Court did not direct the
Government to regularize the services of the daily-rated
employees from the date of joining the service and the
Government was only directed to pay them the same salary
and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent
employees with effect from the date when they were
employed.
The Government issued Office Order dated 7.6.1988
Annexure-2 giving the guidelines in view of the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court for absorbing the
casual workers against regular post and again the
department issued directions for the regularization of the
services of eligible muster roll workers vide letter dated
25.8.1988 Annexure-A3. It is the definite case of the
respondent management that after following the guidelines
and instructions, the posts were created and on receipt of
the post; the service of the workman was regularized w.e.f.
16.3.1993. Thus, the department regularized the service of
the workman when the post was created and it is nowhere
the case of the workman that the post was existing on the
day he was initially appointed as Baildar i.e. 19.4.1984. The
workman has relied on a list of the employees prepared by
Horticulture Department as well as Annexure A11 and A12
vide which Sob Nath and Krishan Pal was granted
appointment to content that other employees were
regularized immediately after the pronouncement of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court but he was denied the
benefits for regularization of services w.e.f. 19.4.1984. Suffice
it to say that nothing has come on the file that present
workman is similarly placed as the employees find
mentioned in Annexure A10 or in Annexure A11 and A12
and therefore he cannot claim parity with them, as much as
there is nothing on the file that any post was existing on
the day i.e. 19.4.1984 when the workman is claiming
regularization of services. The case of Director General of
Works (supra) is not applicable as in that case the only
question involved was regarding the calculation of arrears
of pay etc. in pursuance of the judgment of Surinder Singh's
case (supra).
Thus, services were rightly regularized when the post
was sanctioned and the action of the management in not
regularizing services of workman w.e.f. 19.4.1984 is legal
and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The
reference is accordingly answered against the workman.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1903.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 47@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@259@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 47/2005) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of M/s Eastern Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 28/09/2015.
[No. L 22012/259/2004-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
3954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 2005
PARTIES: The management of Satgram Incline of M/s. ECL.
Vs.
Sri Arum Kumar Singh
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Shri P.K. Goswami Ld. Advocate
For the Union:
Shri G.P. Mal & M. Mukherjee,
(Workman)
Ld. Advocate
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated: 31.08.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of
Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/259/2004-IR(CM-II)
dated 05.07.2005 has been pleased to refer the following
dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of management of Satgram
Incline of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri A.K. Singh from
service vide order dated 08.03.2001 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?
Having received the Order No. L-22012/259/2004-IR
(CM-II) dated 05.07.2005 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 47 of 2005
was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
The delinquent workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh has
stand in his written statement that he was appointed by
the erstwhile coal company in the year 1972. He was
promoted to the post of Assistant Loading Inspector in
the year 1998. He had been discharging his duties honestly
and diligently. While Sri Arun Kumar Singh was on duty as
an Asst. Loading Inspector at N.S. Coal Depot
on 05.01.1999, a team of Vigilance Department of ECL visited
the colliery and checked the Attendance Record vis-a-vis
physical availability at the coal depot of the loading
personnel. Due to availability of insufficient coal at the
dumping site, the workers were idle at the said coal depot,
which was a general phenomenon. Workers used to be
scattered and roaming here and there, sometimes, outside
the coal loading site and for this reason 17 loading
personnel, whose attendance were marked were not found
physically available at the Depot on the day of vigilance
inspection. The Loaders are all piece-rated employees and
they are paid at per with performing workload assigned to
each workman and therefore, as per existing practice. they
were being allowed attendance any time betweeen 8 AM to
2 PM. Their attendance was valid subject to performing
the assigned job depending upon the availability of coal
and transport as per rule. This point was categorically
explained to the vigilance team members of ECL. But, the
team members showed servere highhanded attitude and
forced Sri Arun Kumar Singh to sign on many papers which
were written in English which hardly have any material
value in the eyes of law. Subsequently, the biased Agent of
the colliery transferred Sri Arun Kumar Singh to some
interior site to perform some inferior job just to humiliate
him and issued him charge sheets on alleged mis-conduct
which were replied by him in time suitably. But the
management decided to hold a domestic enquiry by an
Enquiry Officer. During the Enquiry the enquiry Officer
stressed on false and fabricated allegations against Sri Arun
Kumar Singh without giving him any opportunity to defend
the allegations and the principle of natural justice was
ignored. Due to biasness of the Enquity officer, Sri Arun
Kumar Singh the delinquent employee could not rely upon
the fairness of the domestic enquiry and to have more
protection against the ill-motive of both Enquiry officer
and management in concerted manner, in very helpless
situation Sri Singh took the shelter of Civil Court for
intervention and justice. The Learned Court granted stay
order. But finally the stay order was vacated by ECL. The
Enquiry Officer appointed by Satgram Area of ECL was not
fair in conducting the enquiry and he did not offer lawful
opportunity to Sri Arun Kumar Singh to defend the
wrongful allegations brought against him by the
management in the form of a charge-sheet. The enquiry
officer conducted the enquiry based on sheer assumption
unsupported with correct fact and figure as per his whim
and perhaps submitted a fabricated enquiry report to the
Disciplinary Authority. The Discipllinary authory/General
Manager, Satgram Area Vide his Office Order No. SAT/
GM/PER/E/2000/1091© dated 9.2.2001 dismissed the
workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh from service Sri Arun Kumar
Singh has stated that the order of dismissal passed by the
Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager, Satgram Area
is entirely illegal, mis-appropriate, vitiated and biased
because of utter violation of natural justice. The Order of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3955
dismissal was based on ex-parte enquiry in which the
workman was not granted any opportunity to defend the
charges leveled against him and to cross examine the
witnesses produced by the management. All the 17 workers
found absent at the time of checking by the vigilance team
(being idle for non availability of sufficient coal) had
reported for their respective duties at 8 AM in the morning
and were granted attendance in the morning as per rule
and practice prevalent in the said colliery. In this mine, the
loading personnel I are allowed to attend duties any time
between 8 AM to 2 PM as they were piece-rated workers
and paid on the basis of quantum of work done on
availability of loading items. They were given attendance
for this reason. Columns are also kept blank for allowing
their attendance as and when they may come upto 2 PM
subject to performing their assigned work. The workman
has prayed to set-a-side the order of dismissal passed by
the General Manager, Satgram Area again Sri Arun Kumar
Singh and also prayed to pass order of re-instatement in
the service to the post of Asst. Loading Inspector with full
back wages with effect from 08.03.2001.
Management has stated in their written statement
the reference is not tenable. The workman concerned is in
the habit of manipulating the attendance of the loading
personnel of MS colliery, one of the units of the
Management of ECL and as a result he has gained illegally
which amounts to huge wrongful financial loss to the
Company. On 06.02.1999 when Sri Arun Kumar Singh was
on duty at MS coal Depot at Vigilance Team of ECL
Company, visited the colliery and inspected the attendance
in Form-E Register and compared the same with Form B
Register and it was established on record that attendance
of 17 persons were booked falsely and as such Sri Arun
Kumar Singh was issued with a charge sheet. The workman
concerned challenged the charge sheet in Civil Court and
prayed for injunction restraining the management to act
further with the charge sheet. The management as per the
order of the learned Court kept the proceeding of the charge
sheet in abeyance. Subsequently when the Injuction was
vacated by the learned court the management proceeded
the enquiry against Sri Arun Kumar Singh ex-parte as he
did not pay any hid to the notice of enquiry given to him
by the Enquiry Officer. The Enqury Officer in the report of
the enquiry proved the charges leveled against the workman
Sri Arun Kumar Singh, considering the gravity of the mis-
conduct grave and serious, the Disciplinary Authority
issued the order of dismissal. The workman challenged the
order of dismissal in Kolkata High Court which was rejected
by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court to take shelter in proper
forum. Rest of the allegations of the workman has been
denied. The management has stated that the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
The workman has stated in his rejoinder/written
statement that the reference is maintainable under section
10(a)(d) of ID Act read with Section 2 A. Further he has
stated that he had always been present before the enquiry
officer excepting on 06.09.2001 as on the same day, there
was a date of Civil Suit also. Therefore, on 04.09.2001 at
11 a.m. the workman Sri Arum Kumar Singh had requested
the Enquity Officer in writing to postpone the enquiry on
06.09.2001. But the Enquiry Officer did not adjourn the
proceedings of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry ex-parte in absence of delinquent workman
without giving him opportunity to defend himself during
proceeding of the enquiry. A copy of the enquiry report
only was sent to the workman by special messenger without
enclosing therewith the connected papers submitted during
enquiry proceedings, advising him to make representation
if any against the same if the so desire. The workman Sri
Arum Kumar Singh subsequently raised his objection
against the dismissal order of GM, Satgram Area and
requested for supplying him the copies of supporting
documents, on the basis of which the enquiry report was
concluded ex-parte by the enquiry officer so that he can
make necessary representation against the unlawful and
fabricated enquiry proceedings and the order of dismissal
passed against him. But the same was not supplied to him
nor the workman was given any response to his application.
The enquiry officer had not examined any of the workmen
who were marked absent on the fateful day nor he had
examined the records pertaining to payment of wages on
06.01.1999 of the concerned 17 workmen. As the workman
who had reported in late had been paid wages
proportionately as per quantity of work done. The enquiry,
therefore, was not fair and proper. It is a fully vitiated
enquiry. The punishment was awarded based on improper
enquiry proceedings. The delinquent workman was not
given any opportunity to participate inthe enquiry and the
entire proceeding was completed within a day with much
hurriedness in most unlawful manner. Sri Arun Kumar Singh
has been denied the principle of natural justice.
The workman has filed several documentary
evidences as given below:
(1) Xerox Copy of the letter dated 15.01.1999 marked
W-III, (2) Xerox copy of the statement of workman Arun
Kumar Singh given to G.M., Vigilance, (3) Xerox copy of
the reply of the charge sheet given by the workman dated
25.01.1999, (4) Xerox copy of the charge sheet dated
14.01.1999, (5) Xerox copy of the reply to the charge sheet
dated 18.01.1999, (6) Xerox Copy of the notice of enquiry
dated 25.02.1999, (7) Xerox Copy of the order of reinstanting
the workman dated 05.03.1999, (8) Xerox Copy of the
workman's application dated 16.04.1999, (9) Copy of office
order of Agent, Satgram Project dated 07.01.1999, (10) Xerox
Copy of the charge sheet dated 14.01.1999, (11) Copy of
enquiry notice dated 25.02.1999, (12) Copy of letter issued
to Sri Arun Kumar Singh dated 04.03.1999, (13) Copy of
letter issued to Agent, Satgram Project dated 05.03.1999,
3956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
(14) Xerox Copy of the enquiry notice dated 12.4.1999, (15)
Copy of letter dated 16.04.1999 asking copy of document
from E.O., (16) Copy of reply of E.O. dated 15.05.1999, (17)
Copy of letter of Sri Arun Kumar Singh dated 18.05.1999
asking copy of documents from E.O., (18) Copy of
documents dated 04.09.1999 asking adjournment of hearing
dated 06.09.1999, (19) Certified copy of TS 49/99 fixing next
date on 06.09.2000, (20) Copy of letter of Sri Arun Kumar
Singh dated 23.09.2000, (21) Copy of letter dated 1.3.2001
issued by the G.M., Satgram Area, (22) Copy of letter dated
05.03.2001, 07.03.2001 and 08.03.2001.
The workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence.
The workman has been cross examined by the management.
The management has not filed any documentary or oral
evidence.
I have heard the argument of Sri Monoj Mukherjee,
learned Advocate attended on behalf of the workman. I
have also heard the argument of Sri Pijus Kanti Goswami,
learned Advocate attended on behalf of the management.
The workman has also filed written argument.
Sri Pijus Kanti Goswami, Learned Advocate, appeared
on behalf of the management argued that the dismissed
workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh manipulated the attendance
record of 17 loading personnel. The Vigilance Team of ECL
Company did not find presence of any workman out of the
said 17 persons. The attendance of all such absentees was
marked as 'A' (which means Absent) by the vigilance team
members but later on by adding letter 'M' with 'A'it was
made 'A.M.' figure number '8' was added to make it a 8 A.M.
which amounts to manipulation of the records. He has done
this serious offence for his personal gain which amounts
of mis-conduct of very serious nature as per the Model
Standing Order applicable to the delinquent workman. For
this misconduct the workman was charge sheeted and
subsequently dismissed after proper enquiry. The order of
punishment is just and reasonable.
On the other hand, Sri Monoj Mukherjee, Learned
Advocate of the delinquent workman has argued that this
punishment is harsh, illegal and an glaring act of injustice
to the delinquent workman. On the day of the enquiry there
was a date fixed of Civil Suit and the delinquent workman
was asked to attend civil court on the same date and time.
As such, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the Delinquent workman
had requested the Enquiry officer to postpone the date of
enquiry on 06.09.2001 by submitting application on
04.09.2001 but his same request was rejected by the Enquiry
officer without any intimation to the delinquent workman.
In written argument the Learned Advocate Sri Mukherjee
contended that the enquiry officer was biased and partial.
Copy of the enquiry report along with other relevant papers
were not supplied to the workman in spite of his written
request. He was denied opportunity to avail assistance of
a Lawyer. He was not given any opportunity to represent
against the enquiry report.
It is an admitted fact that the delinquent employee
Sri Arun Kumar Singh was an employee of ECL Company
since 1972 before dismissal. It is also an admitted fact that
while the delinquent workman was on duty on 06.01.1999
as Asst. Loading Inspector a Vigilance Team of ECL, made
a surprise check at the colliery. The allegation that he had
illegally managed the attendance of 17 persons for his
wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss of ECL. Company
has already been denied by the concerned workman.
At the very outset it ought to be considered whether
denial by management for assistance of Lawyer to workman
caused his prejudice. Now question arises whether the
delinquent was entitled for assistance of a Lawyer in a
Departmental Enquiry? Domestic enquiries are of simple
nature where the person appointed as Enquiry Officer is
generally not a Lawyer. In other words, the Enquiry Officer
holds the enquiry without being influenced by procedural
Juggernaut and hear the delinquent employee in person
and in such an informal enquiry a delinquent workman
best be able to defend himself. Rules and natural justice do
not postulate that the workman should be assisted by a
Lawyer. As such in the domestic enquiry the delinquent
has no right to take assistance of a Lawyer.
Hon'ble apex court in Brook Bond (I) Ltd. V/s. Subba
Raman (1961) 2 L.L.J. 417 held that the refusal by the
enquiry officer to allow a workman to be represented by a
lawyer or an outsider, do not vitiate the enquiry.
The workman has stated in his Affidavit that he
deined the charges leveled against him by submitting
written show cause. He was asked by Enquiry Officer to
appear before him on 16.04.1999 in connection with the
said enquiry. In persuasion with the said notice he made a
representation dated 16.04.1999 for supply of copies of
certain documents which are essential for his defence. But
he was refused to supply the same on the plea that enquiry
was still being commenced. The delinquent workman has
also stated that on 18.05.1999 he again requested the
Enquiry officer to supply him the copies of the said
documents which are essential for his defence but neither
those were supplied to him nor he was given any reply. He
was given a notice on 03.09.2000 to appear before an
enquiry on 06.09.2000 at 11 a.m. The delinquent employee
made written request to the Enquiry officer on 04.09.2000
to defer the same to some other date as he was to appear in
Learned Civil Court on 06.09.2000 but the enquiry officer
did not consider his request to adjourn the proposed
enquiry on 06.09.2000 and completed the enquiry on the
same day itself ex-parte. This type o enquiry and evidences
are vitiated and bad in the eyes of law. All the enquiry was
completed in a single day. The delinquent employees was
not given any opportunity to defend. Even he was not
allowed to represent against the show cause letter submitted
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3957
by him against the order of punishment. He was also not
supplied with the copies of documents for making
representation before passing order of punishment.
As per enquiry report, it appears that workman was
guilty of misconduct. The delinquent has manipulated the
attendance of workman, for his wrongful gain, which has
been deducted by vigilance team.
It appears from records the delinquent employee was
issued with two charge sheets. One charge sheet dated 08/
09.01.1999 and another on 14.01.1999. The delinquent
employee replied both the charge-sheets. Copies of reply
as submitted by him were filed. After framing charge against
the delinquent employee Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the
delinquent employee requested the Enquiry Officer vide
his letter dated 16.04.1999 and 18.05.1999 to supply him
copies of documents. The required documents are
mentioned in the letter dated 16.04.1999 and 18.05.1999.
But it is evident from records that the delinquent workman
was not supplied those documents to enable him to defend
before enquiry.
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in GR Venkateshwara
Reddy V/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Has
laid down the following requirements of reasonable
procedure.
(a) The employee shall be informed of the exact
charges which he is called upon to meet;
(b) he should be given an opportunity to explain any
material relied on by the management to prove the charges;
(c) the evidence of the management witness should
be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee
and he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine
such witnesses;
(d) the delinquent employee shall either be furnished
with copies of the documents relied on by the management
or be permitted to have adequate inspection of the
documents relied on by the management.
(e) the delinquent employee should be given the
opportunity to produce relevant evidence—both
documentary and oral which include the right to examine
self and other witnesses; and to call for relevant and material
documents in the custody of the employer;
(f) whenever the inquiring authority is different from
disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee shall be
furnished with a copy of the inquiry report and be permitted
to make a presentation to the disciplinary authority against
the findings recorded in the inquiry report.
Reasonable opportunity means not only framing
charges and asking for explanation but much more. The
employee must be appraised of the materials on which the
charges were framed so that he could have a proper
opportunity of testing or challenging of materials so far as
it would be possible for him. Though the technical rules of
procedure and evidences do not apply to domestic
enquiries, but the rules of natural justice require when a
fact is sought to be proved, before a tribunal it must be
supported by the statement made in presence of the person
against whom the enquiry is held and if a statement is
made at his back it ought not to be treated as substantive
evidence. "Therefore all the evidences against the person
concerned should be taken in his presence and he should
be given an adequate opportunity of cross-examining the
witnesses giving evidence against him. And no material
should be relied upon against him without his being given
an opportunity of explaining it. The delinquent workman
should further be given the opportunity of questioning
the witnesses after knowing in full what they have to state
against him. The witnesses on whom the employer relies
should generally be examined in presence of the delinquent
workman and he must also be informed the materials sought
to be used against him and given an opportunity to explain
it.
It is elementary principle that a person who is required
to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but
also the testimony by which the accusation is supported.
He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in
support of the charge and to put such relevant question
by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must
be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him.
This is the barest requirement of an inquiry can be accpeted.
Management ought to have supplied the copies,
desired by delinquent, to defend the allegations during
enquiry proceeding and after issuing show cause notice. If
the documents are voluminous and cannot be supplied to
him an opportunity has to be given to him to come and
personally inspect the concerned documents. Failure on
the part of the management to supply copies of such
document is to be considered as violation of principle of
natural justice . Furthermore, if the documents are demanded
by the delinquent employee for his defence are available in
the custody of the management, then the delinquent
employee either be summoned to personally go through
the same or to obtain copies on payment of cost. It is
apparent that in this case the copies of documents
requisitioned by the delinquent employee were not
supplied by the management to the concerned persons for
his defence. The enquiry was conducted on 06.09.2001.
The delinquent employee has made written request to
Enquiry officer to postpone the said enquiry on 04.09.2001
i.e. two days before the date of the enquiry. From perusal
of the enquiry report it appears that before 06.09.2001 other
dates were fixed for conducting enquiry by the Enquiry
Officer but it was turned down as the delinquent had not
filed any documents which may show that he was required
to appear before Learned Civil Court. Even if it is accepted,
3958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
he was to appear in Civil Court for the civil suit, then it is
relevant to note that it may not be necessary to appear in
person in a civil case normally and it can be represented by
the Advocate concerned on behalf of the client. But
appearance of the delinquent employee in departmental
proceedings was more essential. It appears the delinquent
employee deliberately did not appear before the Enquiry
Officer. Even if the Enquiry Officer conducted ex-parte
enquiry against the delinquent workman he should have
been given the opportunity to put his defence. On perusal
of the enquiry report dated 29.09.2001 it appears that whole
enquiry was completed in one day on 06.09.2001 without
participation of the delinquent employee which amounts
to an act of denial of natural justice on the part of the
management. The delinquent employee was served Show-
Cause Notice No. GM/JNR/c/816 dated 01.03.2001 by
Registered AD post. In this notice it is mentioned that
"The reply should reach this office within 72 hours of receipt
of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have
no explanation to offer and the management shall dispose
of the case as deemed fit without further reference to you".
On receipt of this letter on 05.03.2001, the delinquent
workman requested the General Manager, Satgram Area by
his letter dated 07.03.2001 to supply him copies of some
documents so that suitable reply to the Show-cause, may
be sent. But the management did not hear to supply copies
of those documents which were required by the delinquent
workman. On 08.07.2001 the General Manager, Satgram Area
passed the dismissal Order vide letter Ref. No. 1091 dated
08.09.2001.
Imposing punishment is the last stage in the
disciplinary action proceedings against a workman. This
stage commences after the disciplinary authority has
received the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a show-
cause notice to the delinquent workman, if any and has
received his response to such notice. Upon considering
the gravity of the misconduct, and the extenuating
circumstances, if any, and also any other factor that may
be relevant in the fact and circumstances of the case, the
disciplinary authority has to decide the quantum of
punishment that may be imposed on the delinquent.
The charges were brought under Section 17 of the
Model Standing Order which amounts to commitment of
theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the employer's
business property, and willful damage to the property of
the Employer. Though the delinquent is guilty of
misconduct, but before passing order of punishment the
compliance of natural justice was necessary on the basis
of enquiry proceedings based on wrong material fact,
evidences and circumstances the dismissal order passed
by the disciplinary authority, it is evident that the workman
has been dismissed from service without complying the
principle of natural justice. Rather the order of dismissal
has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural
justice. The delinquent workman has never been granted
any opportunity to defend the case in his support.
In view of the facts as above I think it just and proper
to modify and substitute the impinged order of punishment
by exercising power under Section 11A of Industrial Dispute
Act 1947.
The delinquent workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh if
not reached the age of superannuation shall be reinstated
in service from 08.03.2001. But as a measure of punishment
he will be reinstated with demotion in the lowest post and
category in which he was initially appointed in the year
1972. He will not get any type of remuneration excepting
25% of the actual billing amount without any incremental
or any other benefits till his reinstatement. If he has reached
the age of superannuation, before passing of the Award,
he will get 25% of remuneration (as back wages) till date of
superannuation, with all pensionary benefits. This must
be complied with immediate effect.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and
needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1904.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2006½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[lañ ,y&20012@175@2005&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court No. 1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/175/2005-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3959
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act. 1947
Reference No. 60 of 2006
Employer in relation to the management of
P.B. Area, M/S. BCCL
And
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:—Shree D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman:—Shree R. Ranjan, Advocate
State :—Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal.
Dated: 28-8-2015
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/175/2005 IR-(CM-1), dated.
01/06/2005, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Balihari
Colliery of M/S. BCCL in not providing employment
to Shri Raj Kumar the dependent son of Late Bhikhari
Mahato is justified? If not to what relief is the said
dependent of Late Bhikhari Mahato entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 03.07.2006. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. But after long delay the workman files their written
statement on 06.12.2012. The management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 30.10.2013. One witness
examined on behalf of the workman and document marked
as W-1 to W-12.
3. The case of the workman that the deceased
employee Late Bhikhari Mahato suffering from desease
and was under the treatment of Medical Officer of BCCL
and during the treatment he was referred to AIMS, New
Delhi. He was declared hundred per cent visually disable
in the year 2000, thereafter he died on 23.01.2002. Sri Raj
Kumar S/O Late Bhikhari Mahato is claiming for
employment in BCCL under the provision of NCWA.
4. The case of the management that according to
clause IV of 9.4.0 of NCWA, the dependant to be considered
for employment should be physically fit and suitable for
employment and aged not more than 35 years. After
application of Sri Raj Kumar, he was referred to Medical
Board but Sri Raj Kumar is not medically fit for any
employment in mine for color blindness in examination of
Medical Board. Hence his request for employment was
regretted.
5. The applicant has sought for job as a dependant
employee. His case was checked and he was sent for medical
Board and as it is learnt that the workman found unfit,
suffering from colour blindness, his claim was regretted.
6. The Counsel for the management submitted that,
the colour blindness is a disqqualification in BCCL. But
the workman counsel submitted that, colour blindness
person are still working in BCCL, hence the workman be
ordered to be taken.
7. As per letter No. BCCL/GM/(P)co-Ord&IMP/2013/
3741-59 dated 12.08.2013 marked as Ext, W-1, 10 persons
are in the year 2012-13 and 07 persons are in 13-14, provided
employment having same infirmities.
8. What ever it may be, this Tribunal orders to re-
examine the workman and take him in job even in physically
handicapped quota, if the quota vacancy is there or
subsequently when occurs.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I hold that, the management to accommodate the
applicant in the BCCL, Since the workman has applied for
job since long, If possible take him in job under disabled
quota and place him suitably.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1905.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 81@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[lañ ,y&20012@90@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
3960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court No. 1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/90/2014-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 81 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area,
M/S. BCCL
And
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:—Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate.
For the Workman:—Sri S.K. Sinha, Advocate
State:—Jharkhand
Industry:Coal
Dated: 10-8-2015
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/90/2014 IR-(C-1), dated.
03.09.2014, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has,
in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section
(1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Patherdih
Colliery of M/S. BCCL in dismissing Sri Shambhu
Orang M/Loader from the service of the company
vide order dated 5/7.8.2006 is fair and justified? To
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 12.09.2014. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on
05.11.2014. And the management files thair written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 06.02.2015. Management's
document marked as M-1 to M-13.
3. The workman has been dismissed by the
management on the ground of continuous long absence.
The workman was posted under the management as Miner
loader which is Cat-V. But the workman took the plea that
due to his ill health he was unable to perform the work of
miner loader.
4. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the
case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. But
he has already out of service since 09 years. It is felt to give
another chance to the workman to serve.
5. Considering the facts and circumstance of this
case, I hold that he be taken into job as category-I workman
as fresh employee and also to keep him as probation for a
period of two years in the interest of justice. Therefore the
question of back wages does not arise at all.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1906.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 226@1994½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
Fkk
[lañ ,y&20012@189@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 226/
1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.
CCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 28/09/2015.
[No. L-20012/189/1994-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3961
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 226/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Sarubera,
Colliery, M/S. CCL
And
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:—Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman:—None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated: 12-8-2015
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/189/94/ IR(C-1) dated
31.08.1994, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has,
in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Sarubera
Colliery P.O. Sarubera, Dist.-Hazaribagh of CCL in
terminating Shri Bhondu Mahto from the service of
the Company w.e.f. 31.3.92 is justified? If not to what
relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1907.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 215@1994½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@337@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 215/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/337/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference : No. 215/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Alkusha Colliery M/s. BCCL
And
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industrey : Coal
Dated 12.8.2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/337/93/IR (C-I) dated 25.08.1994
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
3962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Alkusha
Colliery under Kustore Area No. VIII P.O. Kustore,
Dist-Dhanbad in not accepting the date of birth
recorded in the winding Engine Operator's certificate
of Shri Babu Ram Mushar as 20.4.42 is justified? If
not, what relief the workman entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1908.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 111@1994½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@116@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/09/2015.
[No. L-20012/116/1993-IR (C-I)
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 111/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Bhowra (N) OCP, M/s BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry-Coal
Dated 11/8/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/116/93/IR (C-I) dated
28/04/1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra
(N) OCP of M/s BCCL in not giving promotion to
Grade "B" to Sh. Deb Prasad Hazra EP Electrician is
justified? If not, what relief is the Concerned workman
entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1909.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@1994½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@184@1993&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh&1½]
,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3963
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/184/1993-IR (C-I)
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 119/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Murulidih Colliery, M/s BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 10.8.2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/184/93/IR (C-I) dated 11/05/
1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of 20/21
Pits, Murulidih Colliery of M/s BCCL, P.O-Mahuda,
Dt-Dhanbad in denying to refer Sh. Ahmad Hussain
M/Loader to the Apex Medical Board for assessment
of his age is justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1910.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 214@1994½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@340@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 214/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/340/1993-IR (C-I)
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference: No. 214/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Jealgora Colliery, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri U. N. Lall, Advocate
For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 7.8.2015
3964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/340/93/IR (C-I) dated 28.04.1994
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Jealgora
Colliery of M/s. Bharat CokingCoal Ltd., in denying
regularization to Shri Chandeshwar Sahu, Fitter helper
Grade "E" as Fitter in excavation grade "B" w.e.f.
1988 is justified? If not to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1911.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 256@1994½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@325&ch@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 256/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/325-B/1993-IR (C-I)
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 256/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Kenduadih Colliery, M/s BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri N.M. Kumar, Advocate
For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 18/8/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/325-B/93/IR (C-I) dated 09/11/
1994 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management in not
treating the date of Birth of Sri Abdul Sattar as
15.10.38 is justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled for?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3965
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñ vkñ 1912.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 110@1994½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@132@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/132/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.
Act, 1947
Reference: No. 110/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra (N)
OCP, M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
: Industry : Coal
Dated 10.8.2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/132/93/IR (C-I) dated 28.04.1994
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra
(N) OCP of M/s. BCCL in denying of Grade "B" to
S/Sh Ruplal and Brij Lal EP Fitter from 1986 is justified?
If not, what relief are the above workmen entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the referene, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. If is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2015
dkñ vkñ 1913.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 118@1994½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@135@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2015
S.O. 1913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 118/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 28.09.2015.
[No. L-20012/135/1993-IR (C-I]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.
Act, 1947
Reference: No. 118/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra (N)
OCP, M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
None
State
:
Jharkhand.
State : Jharkhand
:
Industry : Coal
Dated 19.8.2015
3966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/135/93/IR (C-I) dated
06-04-1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra
(N) OCP of M/s. BCCL in not granting Excavation
Grade "B" to scale in favour of the workman Ram
Kisun Dusadh from 25/05/88 is justified? If not, what
relief is the workman entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1914.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy
cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-09-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@122@2004&vkbZvkj ¼chñ&II½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2005)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
29.09.2015.
[No. L-12011/122/2004-IR (B-II]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference: No. 07/2005
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Punjab National Bank
AND
Their Workmen
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray,
Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen : Mr. D.N. Lahiri, authorized
representative for PNB
Employees' Union (W.B.),
sponsoring union.
Mr. Chiranjit Bhattacharyya,
Ld. Counsel for PNB
Progressive Employees Union
(W.B.), added party.
State: West Bengal
Indsutry: Banking
Dated: 15th September, 2015
AWARD
By order No. L-12011/122/2004/IR (B-II) dated
21-12-2004 the Government of India Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudiction:
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank, S.R.M.O. Kolkata to determine the
seniority of the erstwhile New Bank of India
Employees in the matter of posting in the post
carrying special allowance, promotion etc. is violative
to the provisions of the settlement as circulated vide
circular No. 1569 dated 6th February, 1997 as also
the placement Scheme dt. 08.12.1993 or not? If yes,
what remedy the workmen are entitled to?"
2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the case of the
sponsoring union is as follows:
New Bank of India was amalgamated with Punjab
National Bank by a Govt. notification dated 04.09.1993 called
the New Bank of India (Amalgamation and Transfer of
Undertaking) Scheme, 1993 and accordingly all the
employees of erstwhile New Bank of India (hereinafter
referred to as Transferor Bank) became the employees of
the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the
Transferee Bank). On 08.12.1993 the Govt. of India in
consultation with the Reserve Bank of India prepared
scheme called the New Bank of India [Determination of
Placement of Employee (officers and workmen) of New Bank
of India in Punjab National Bank] (hereinafter referred to as
Placement Scheme).
3. The said Placement Scheme dated 08.12.1993 was
challenged before different High Courts and ultimately the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had been pleased to uphold the
placement scheme. It is alleged that at the time of
preparation of the priority list of clerical staff for their
selection to the posts carrying special allowances/pay, the
management was giving one mark for each completed year
of service violating the terms of the placement scheme;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3967
because as per of the said scheme completed months of
services were also required to be considered for counting
the length of service. For such unjust activities of the
management industrial dispute was raised by the union.
Hence this reference.
4. During pendency of this referene case, the
aggrieved employees formed a separate union under the
name and style Punjab National Bank Progressive
Employees' Union (WB) and that union had been added as
party in this case.
5. This added union in its statement of claim has
stated that as per Clause 4(a)(iii) of the Placement Scheme,
the computation of years of service rendered by the
employees of the Transferor Bank is to be considered only
for the purpose of determining the minimum length of
service for promotion from one cadre to another and also
for the purpose of posting in the posts carrying special
allowance. But the management in order to deprive the
employees of the Transferor Bank, is deliberately misinter
preting the said placement Scheme and the ratio of 2:1
which is only applicable for determination of the minimum
length of service for promotion, is being applied in all other
respects including determination of seniority and for
preparation of priority list. Accordingly it is prayed that
the management may be directed to follow the placement
Scheme in its true sense and spirit by applying the ratio 2:1
only for the purpose of determining the minimum length of
service for promotion from one cadre to another and for
the purpose of posting in the posts carrying special
allowances.
6. The management has contested the case by filing
written statement contending inter alia that at the time of
preparation of the priority list for determination of seniority,
the management/Bank followed the terms of settlement as
well as the norms of the placement scheme in respect of the
employees of the Trnasfer or Bank. The years of service
had been appropriately reduced as per the norms of that
scheme and the reduced seniority had been added to the
actual service rendered in the Transferee Bank for
calculation of priority marks. It is also contended that only
for the purpose of calculating priority marks/seniority, the
dates of appointment were shifted in the priority list only
to reflect reduced length of service in repect of the
employees of the Transferor Bank by following 2:1 ratio
and that the shifting of such date of appointment did not
actually any change in the date of appointment in the Bank.
It is further contended that on the basis of agreements
dated 01.11.1988, 30.01.1997 and 24.12.2002 between the
Bank and majority union viz. All India PNB Employees
Federation one mark was given for each completed year of
service in the bank with a maximum 25 marks. Accordingly
it is prayed that the instant case may be disposed of in
favour of the management by answering the reference in
the negative.
7. The Union in order to prove its case has examined
three (3) witnesses and proved seven (7) documents marked
Exts. W-01 to W-07 respectively. The management has not
examined any witness but in support of its case proved six
(6) documents marked Exts. M-01 to M-06 respectively.
8. It is submitted on behalf of both the unions that
clause 4(a) (iii) of the Placement Scheme is clear,
unembiguous and as per the said clause the ratio of 2:1 is
only applicable for determining the minimum length of
service for promotion and also for the purpose of posting
an employee to the posts carrying special allowance etc.
9. It is further submitted that the Central Government
by filing affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
connection with Civil Appeal Nos. 4247-50 of 1996
supported the case of the Union that the ratio of 2:1 was
meant for computation of years of service rendered in the
Transferor Bank only for the purpose of determining the
minimum length of service for promotion from subordinate
cadre to clerical cadre etc. and not for any other purpose.
10. It is the general Rule that in case of District or
State transfer made on own seeking, the person will be
placed at the bottom of the gradation list for the purpose of
determination of the inter se seniority unless there is any
specific rule in this regard.
11. Admittedly the Central Government framed
Placement Scheme on 8th December, 1993 the legality of
which was challenged. The Hob'ble Supreme Court by its
decision passed in connection with Civil Appeal Nos. 4247-
50 of 1996 held that "In view of the legal position as
discussed above, and on examining the provisions of the
Placement Scheme more particularly Clases 4(a) (iii) (b) (ii)
and on consideration of the opinion rendered by the
Reserve Bank of India we have no hesitation to come to
the conclusion that the said Scheme is neither arbitrary nor
irrational and on the other hand a just scheme evolved by
the Union Government after due consultation with the
Reserve Bank of India and Court cannot interfere with such
scheme." (Paragraph 25)
12. On perusal of Clause 5 of the Amalgamation
Scheme and Section 9 of the Acquisition Scheme it can be
ascertained why the Placement Scheme more particularly
the ratio of 2:1 was framed. The background of framing the
said scheme was that when the New Bank of India was
sustaining loss and would have been otherwise wound
up, the Reserve Bank of India advised the Union
Government to merge the same with a stronger bank so
that the employees did not suffer. While advising
amalgamation the Reserve Bank of India also considered
the relevant factors for determination of the inter se seniority
of the employees and after due deliberations, the Reserve
Bank came to the conclusion of accepting the ratio of 2:1 at
the stage of placement for promotion which advice was
ultimately accepted by the Central Government.
3968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
13. Now from paragraph 11 of the said decision of
the Hob'ble Supreme Court it appears that during argument
the Ld. Counsel (Additional Solicitor General) placed before
the Hob'le Court the relevant paragraphs of the counter
affidavit of the Reserve Bank of India and the Union
Government and also a chart indicating the impact of the
ratio of 2:1 as well as the impact of if the entire service of an
employee under Transferor Bank was taken into account
and it was contended that if the latter course would have
been taken then for years to come no employee of the
Punjab Nationl Bank namely Transferee Bank would have
got any opportunity of getting promotion to the higher
cadre. It was further contended that when the Reserve
Bank of India monitoring all these Nationalized Banks was
consulted and the said Reserve Bank of India decided to
accept the ratio of 2:1 after considering several germane
factors , it could not be said to be arbitary or irrational as
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Mr. Reddy learned Additional Solicitor General
also contended that the provisions of Clasue 4 (a) (iii) and
4 (b) (ii) was merely an one time exercise and the said
provisions was made after due consultation with the
Reserve Bank of India and after taking into consideration
several important factors, like, respective manpower of the
two banks, respective avenues of promotion in two Bank,
respective business of two banks and the fact that there
had been a large scale promotion in the transferor bank
just before amalgamation.
14. The above argument of the Ld. Additional
Solicitor General based on statistics and documents was
accepted by the Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court and
it was held that the said Placement Scheme was neither
arbitrary nor irrational nor discriminatory.
15. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to observe that ¶............ In the case in
hand Amalgamation became necessary as the transferor
bank was incurring heavy loss and without the
amalgamation it would have been totally would up. When
a scheme is framed amalgamating two banks, it is not
possible for the Central Government to take the details of
the service condition in account and that is why it provided
that the employees of the transferor bank would become
the employees of the transferee bank on the same terms
and condtions, with the same right to pension, gratuity
and other matters which would have been admissible to
them if they would have continued as the employees of the
transferor bank. But so far as the question of their placement
and inter-se seniority vis-a-vis the employees of the
transferee bank, the Scheme itself stipulated that in
consultation with the Reserve Bank of India the Central
Governent after taking relevant factors into consideration
may frame the Scheme. It is in exercise of this power the
placement scheme has been framed and under the
Placement Scheme what has been intended is that for
determination of the interse seniority and in the matter of
promotion from subordinate cadre to the elecrical cadre
and from the clerical cadre to the officers cadre while the
computation of years of service rendered is taken into
account, the computation shall be made in the ratio of 2:1
i.e. two years of service in the transferor bank would be
considered equivalent to one year of service in the
transferee bank. This computation is only one time
computation and whether such decision has been taken
after taking the relevant factors into account will be
considered by us when the question of arbitrariness etc. is
considered. But on examining the provisions of the
Acquisition Act as well as the provisions of Clause 5(4) of
the Amalgamation Scheme framed in exercise of power
under Section 9 of the Acquisition Act and the impugned
clauses of the Placement Scheme we have no hesitation to
come to the conclusion that the Central Government did
retain the power to frame the Placement Scheme in question
which is essential for determination of the placement of the
employees of the transferor bank and the inter-se seniority
vis-a-vis the employees of the transferee bank and framing
such scheme it was not necessary to afford an opportunity
of hearing to the employees of the transferor bank, as in
our view there has been no change in conditions of their
service. In this view of the matter we answer the first
question by holding that the Central Government had the
power to frame the subsequent scheme which has been
termed by us in this judgement as the Placement Scheme
for the placement of the employees of the transferor bank
in the transferee bank and for the determination of their
inter se seniority with the employees of the transferee bank.¸
(Pagragraph 18)
16. From the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the
Central Government and the observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court made in the said decision it further appears
that the said Placement Scheme was prepared for protecting
the interest of the employees of the transferee bank in the
matter of promotion and posting in the posts carrying
special allowance only. Considering the affidavit of the
Central Government filed in the said Civil Appeal Nos. 4247-
50 of 1996 and the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court it further apears that the ratio of 2:1 is also applicable
for preparing priority list in respect of counting the inter-se
seniority for the purpose of promotion and posting in the
posts carrying special allowance. The employees of
trasnferor and transferee bank have same rights to pension,
gratuity and other matters and in those cases the ratio of
2:1 is not applicable.
17. The management in its written statement
(paragraph 1) has specifically stated that ¶It is submitted
that the bank had entered into a conciliation settlement
dtd. 16.06.73 with the majority Union i.e., All India PNB
Employees' Federation. The said settlement has been
modified from time to time. The settlement dtd. 01.11.88
was signed between the parties before Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) New Delhi. In terms of the said
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3969
21. Accordingly the instant reference is answered in
the negative and the workmen are not entitled to any relief
whatsoever.
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata.
The 15th September, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1915.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@1@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
29/09/2015.
[No. L-12012/1/2013-IR(B-II)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 37/2013
Ref. No. L-12012/1/2013-IR(B-II) dated 22.03.2013
BETWEEN
Shri Ganga Singh Rawat
H-78, Budha Vihar, Mijhola Line Par.,
Moradabad (U.P.)
AND
1. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Punjab National Bank,
HO: 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
settlement while preparing the priority list, one mark shall
be given for each completed year of service in the bank in
Clerical cadre (excluding period of apprenticeship and work
in non clerical post) from the date of appointment as
probationer with a maximum of 25 marks. From the above it
is clear that there is no concept of allotting priority marks
for completed months.¶The said contention has not been
denied by Punjab National Bank Employees' Union by filing
rejoinder. The added party has also not denied the said
statement of the management by filing the statement of
claim. So the allegation of the PNB Employees' Union that
the management is violating the terms of Placement Scheme
is preparing the priority list by not counting the completed
months of service of the employees, does not stand.
18. According to the PNB Progressive Employees'
Union, the Central Government by filing affidavit in Civil
Appeal Nos. 4247-50 of 1996, has admitted that only for the
purpose of determing the minimum length of service for
promotion, computation of years of service rendered in the
Transferor Bank shall be in the ratio of 2:1.
19. From paragraph 26 of the said decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court it appears that the Central
Government filed affidavit contending that" ........Central
Government after taking into consideration the complete
data and entire material on record of the case and in
consultation with Reserve Bank of India decided that the
service rendered in erstwhile New Bank of India by
employees/officers in grade/scale in which they were placed
at the time of amalgamation had to be computed in the ratio
of 2:1 and that too only for the purpose of computing
eligibility for consideration for promotion to next grade/
scale and/or for the purpose of posting on a post carrying
special allowance. For all other purpose, the service
rendered by the employees of erstwhile New Bank of India
has to be treated at par with the service rendered by the
employees of New Bank of India in PNB......"
The above paragraph of the affidavit does not
support the contention of the added party (PNB
Progressive Employees' Union). On the contrary the said
affidavit supports the stand of the management that the
service rendered by the employees of the Transferor Bank
is to be computed in the ratio of 2:1 only for the purpose of
computing eligibility for consideration of promotion to next
grade/scale and/or for the purpose of posting on a posts
carrying special allowance.
20. Having regarding to the facts and circumstances
and the discussion made above, it appears that both unions
have failed to establish any case in their favour that the
ratio of 2:1 is only application for determination of the
minimum length of service for promotion and that the said
ratio of 2:1 is not applicable in preparing priority list for
counting inter-se seniority for the purpose of promotion.
3970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
2. The Dy. General Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Ram Ganga Vihar,
Phase-II, Moradabad-UP
Moradabad (U.P.)
3. The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Ram Ganga Vihar Phase-II, Moradabad-UP
Moradabad (U.P.)
4. The Sr. Manager
Punjab National Bank,
Nazimabad Kotdwar Road, Distt. Bijnour-UP
Bijnour
AWARD
1. By order No. L-12012/1/2013-IR(B-II) dated
22.03.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Sri Ganga Singh Rawat, H-78,
Budha Vihar, Mijhola Line Par, Moradabad (U.P.) and the
Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, New
Delhi, Moradabad, Bijnore and others for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE
MANAGEMENT OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
MORADABAD IN REMOVING FROM THE
SERVICES OF THE BANK TO SRI GANGA SINGH
RAWAT W.E.F. 13.02.2010 IS LEGAL AND JUST?
WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED APPLICANT IS
ENTITLED TO"
3. On receiving the reference order dated 22.03.2015,
notice through registered post was issued to the workman
for filing claim statement with list of reliance and witness
as well. On the date fixed viz. 07.06.2013, the workman
appeared in the court before the then Hon'ble Judge/
Presiding Officer, Since then several dates were given on
the request of the workman, or otherwise in the interest of
justice by the court.
4. The workman vide his application W-4 dated
02.04.2014 moved before by learned predecessor, has
prayed to adjourn the case till the disposal of his
representations sent earlier to several authorities viz. Labour
Secretary, Govt of India, H.E. President of India, Chief
Labour Commissioner, Govt. of India. Letter sent by PNB
Employees Association etc., photo copies of so called
direction given by Hon'ble Minister and other authorities
have also been filed by the applicant.
5. Thereafter several applications were moved before
this Tribunal by the workman on the ground that his
representations have not been duly decided by the
concerned competent authority, neither the directions given
by Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner has been
complied with by the concerned aurhorities, on this pre-
text adjournment have been sought.
6. Arguments of the workman/applicant have been
heard at length. Record has been perused thoroughly. The
simple issue to be adjudicated is that whether the action of
the PNB, Moradabad regarding his removal from the service
of the bank w.e.f. 13.02.2012 is legal and just, or not, on this
simple and plain point of reference, neither any claim
statement/petition/application has been submitted in this
court by the concerned person Sri Ganga Singh Rawat, nor
any other documentary or oral evidence pertaining to this
case has been adduced by him, although sufficient
opportunity during the last about two years has been
provided to the applicant.
7. Taking into account, facts and circumstances of
this case, it seems that the concerned person Shri Ganga
Singh Rawat is not at all interested to submit his version
before this court or to further proceed with the case.
Therefore, in such circusmtances, it is not possible, neither
legally feasible, to grant any relief to Shri Ganga Singh
Rawat, so far as the letter of reference dated 22.03.2013 is
concerned. It can not be inferred that the impugned action
of PNB regarding removal from the service w.e.f. 13.02.2010,
is not legal or unjust. No relief can be hence, granted to
Shri Ganga Singh Rawat.
8. Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned
herein above, no relief is legally required to be given to the
applicant/workman Sh. Ganga Singh Rawat. The reference
under adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.
Award accordingly.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
15.09.2015
LUCKNOW
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1916.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-168@2001½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnh; ljdkj dks 29-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@149@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 168/2001)
of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as show in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.09.2015.
[No. L-12012/149/2001-IR(B-II)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3971
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/168/2001
Shri Deepak Kumar Joshi,
C/o Shri B.M. Upadhyay,
Near Jain Mandir, Harda,
Distt. Harda.
...Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Above City Post Office,
Mangalwara, Hoshangabad
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 21st day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 13-11-2001 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
149/2001-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Regional
Manager, Central Bank of India in not considering
Shri Deepak Kumar Joshi for regular appointment is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page
3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he worked with
2nd party Bank from 1-1-1987 to 30-12-87. He worked more
than 240 days during calendar year. He was not served
with any chargesheet. He appeared for examination on
14-3-93. He was interviewed on 25-8-93. He was not informed
the out come of the interview. That certain persons similarly
situated appeared in the examination were appointed. The
Central Office of the Bank issued circular dated 12-3-91. It
was made clear that employees who had worked 240 days
continuous service for period of 12 months after 1-1-1982
to 31-12-90 will be considered for absorption in immediate
available vacancies without any tests or interview. Inspite
of the vacancies available, workman was not given
appointment.
3. The Bank had regularized persons time to time on
permanent post. Jitendra Singh Mansoria, Laxman Gupta,
Suresh Choudhary were appointed by the Bank.
Subsequently Shri Pramod Gour appeared in the selection
was also appointed in the Bank on the basis of selection in
August, 2000. Despite workman completed 240 days
continuous service and all those persons were appointed
in the Bank, workman was not appointed under extent of
RBI Instruction. Workman was discriminated. The action
of the management is arbitrary and unfair. The violation of
Article 14, 16 of the constitution. The action of the
management is arbitrary and unfair. The action of the
management amounts to unfair labour practice. On such
grounds workman prays for regular appointment in the
Bank from the time juniors were appointed/regularized.
4. Written Statement is filed by management. Claim
of workman is based on his pleadings that he was working
in the Bank on daily wages from 1-1-1987 to 31-12-1987
continuously more than 240 days. He had appeared for
written exam on 14-3-93 and interview on 25-8-93. 2nd party
submits that workman had not completed 240 days. He
worked only for 217 days in a calendar year. Workman
appeared in selection process on 14-3-93. He was informed
on 25-8-93. The result was sent to Zonal Office, Bhopal.
Meantime instructions were received from RBI/Union
Government imposed the restriction about any appointment.
No mistake was committed by the management in this case.
Workman was paid wages for his working days. The
contentions of workman in Para 1 of his statement of claim
is admitted relating to rising dispute and reference by the
Government. Rest of the contentions of workman are
denied. It is explained that fresh appointments were
prohibited by RCI. There is no violation of Article 14, 16 of
Constitution.
5. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions
in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of Regional
In Negative
Manager, Central Bank of
India in not considering Shri
Deepak Kumar Joshi for
regular appointment is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. There is no dispute from pleadings of parties that
workman had appeared in written test on 14-3-93 and
interview on 25-8-93. Workman filed affidavit of evidence.
In his affidavit of evidence, workman says he was
continuously working in the bank from January, 87 to
31-12-87, he worked more than 240 days. As per circular
dated 12-3-91, person working more than 240 days in
calendar year between 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1988 was eligible
for absorption. He also refers to 5-12-95 about vacancy of
3972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
the post of peon. From evidence of workman, documents
Exhibit W-1 to W-3 were admitted in evidence. After his re-
examination, documents Exhibit W-4 to W-7/1 to W-7/6 are
proved. Workman in his cross examination says
appointment letter was not given to him. He was working
in the Bank from 1986 to 2000 as peon. He denies that he
not worked for 240 days during any of the calendar year.
He had received letter in writing for written exam is produced
on record. He was called for oral interview. In his cross-
examination after re-examination workman says that he has
no acknowledgment of submitting application W-3 in the
Bank. The circular W-5 was supplied to him by Daftary.
The documents W-7/1 to 7/6 were sent by RPAD. Its
acknowledgment was not obtained by him. The
acknowledgement of Exhibit W-2 is not produced. W-1 was
supplied to him by Branch Manager O.P. Garg on his
request.
8. Management's witness Mohd. Akhtar filed
affidavit of his evidence stating that workman had not
worked for 240 days during any of the year. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says the recruitment
was stopped as per circular in March, 2001. He was unable
to tell when the restriction on appointments was removed.
He claims ignorance of recruitment in bank during 2011 to
2013. He claims ignorance of recruitment in Harda branch
Regional Office. He claims ignorance of Class IV employees
working in Regional Office, Bhopal. He also claims
ignorance who many new branch were opened after 2001.
9. The documents produced Exhibit W-8 is letter given
to workman by Regional Office that he passed written test
and called for interview on 25-8-93. Exhibit W-3 is letter
sent by branch manager to Regional Office alongwith the
statement of working days of workman Exhibit W-4. The
working days of workman are shown 280 days. Exhibit W-5
is copy of circular dated 12-3-91 which provides-absorption
of casual employees working 240 days in 12 calendar
months during the period 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1990. Exhibit
W-6 is letter given to Regional Office. Workman was
working for 248 days during period 24-10-86 to 23-10-87.
Exhibit W-7/1 to 7/7 are representations submitted by workman
contending that he was working for more than 240 days. The
evidence of workman is supported by documentary evidence.
Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 is letter
issued by Regional Office dated 3-9-01 calling information
about engagement of casual labours. In Exhibit M-2, working
days of workman are shown 89 days during perod 1-1-87 to
31-3-87. In Exhibit M-3, Page 5 question about absorption of
workman and Pramod Gaur was considered. The decision
was taken that posting will be shown subject to clearance of
vacancies form higher authority. Exhibit M-4 relates to the
selection process initiated in the Bank in 1997. In Exhibit
M-5, working days of Ist part workman during 93 to 96 are
shown 51 days, 52 days. M-6 is document of renewal of
Employment Exchange Card of the workman. Exhibit M-7
shows working days of workman from 1-1-1987 to 31-12-1987,
the working days are more than 240 days. In Exhibit M-8,
particulars of working days of workman are shown for the
period 93 to 96. The evidence of workman that he worked
more than 240 days in 1987 is supported by documents.
Exhibit M-7 produced by management Circular Exhibit W-5
provides for absorption of casual labours working more
than 240 days in 12 calendar months during the period 1-1-
1982 to 31-12-1990 supports the claim of workman for
absorption as permanent peon. The 2nd party has not
produced any documents relating to restriction of
appointment by RBI after 21-8-90.
10. Reliance is placed by counsel for workman Shri
Tripathi on ratio held in—
Case of Indrapal Yadav and others versus Union of
India and others reported in 1985(2) SCC 648. Their
Lordship dealing with Section 25-F,G of ID Act and
termination of services on ground of winding up of
projects was held not justified. In above cited case,
their Lordship considered during pendency of their
petition before Supreme Court, Railway
Administrative Scheme for absorption of temporary
workman on completion of 260 days continuous
employment. The scale made applicable to those on
service on January, 1984. It seems choice of that date
likely to create arbitrary discrimination, scheme
accepted by Supreme Court subject to modification
in the date from 1 January, 84 to January 1, 1981.
Their Lordship held absorption should be in order of
length of continuous service.
In case of Rajpal vrs. State of Haryana and others
reported in 1996(7) SCC 381. Their Lordship dealing with
regularization of persons similarly situated also taken into
service and their service regularized pursuant to order of
Supreme Court. Appellant being the only person left out
held also entitled to same relief.
In present case, evidence of workman about
appointing other persons appeared for written test and
interview were given appointment is not shattered in his
cross-examination. The ratio held in above case covers the
claim of workman. No cogent reasons is proved for denial
of absorption of workman. The ratio relied in case of Mohan
B versus Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chennai relates to
termination in violation of Section 25 of ID Act needs no
detailed discussion as ratio has no bearing to the
controversy between parties.
Ratio held in case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another
versus management of FCI and another reported in 2014(7)
SCC 190 also relates to violation of Section 25-F of ID Act
needs no detailed discussion. Workman has established
that he completed 240 days continuous service in 1987. He
is entitled for absorption as per Circular Exhibit W-5 dated
12-3-91. The management not absorbing workman is
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3973
discriminatory and therefore I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
11. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises to what relief the workman is entitled.
Workman in his affidavit says that he was unemployed but
he has not disclosed how he was surviving all those years,
therefore absorption of workman with 25% backwages will
be appropriate.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India in not considering Shri Deepak
Kumar Joshi for regular appointment is not proper
and legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to absorb workman as peon
from date of order of reference i.e. 13-11-2001 with
25% back wages.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1917.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-107@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnh; ljdkj dks 29-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@160@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as show in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 29/09/2015.
[No. L-12012/160/98-IR(B-II)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/107/99
Shri Mohanlal Sahu,
S/o Shri Hemlal Sahu,
C/o Shri Gopi Pan Thela,
Bajrang Para, Kohak,
Bhilai (C.G)
...Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, Sector-I, Kohak Branch,
PO Bhilai,
Distt. Durg (C.G)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 28-2/8-3/99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
160/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the termination of services of Shri
Mohanlal Sahu, S/o Hemlal Sahu, Ex-casual employee
of Khak Branch, Bhilai of UCO Bank by the
management of the bank w.e.f. 1-5-97 is justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed as
messenger after Jaisingh cash peon was transferred to
Bailadila Branch of UCO Bank. He was appointed form
28.8.93. He worked in said branch from 28.8.93 to 1.5.97
continuously more than 240 days. His services were
discontinued on 1.5.97. That he is covered as workman
under Section 2(s) of ID Act that after completing 240 days
continuous service, he had acquired status of regular
employee. He was offered payments every Saturday
obtaining his signature from other persons. That he was
working as messenger against permanent vacant post of
cash peon. He should have been appointed as peon instead
of continuing on daily wages, he was paid minimum wages
which is not permissible as per Article 14, 16 of the
constitution. His appointment by 2nd party on daily wages
when permanent post was vacant is illegal. The daily wages
are appointed to meet unexpected increase of work load.
Such appointment on daily wages cannot be made when
need is permanent which last for long period. Government
cannot take advantage of unemployment prevailing in the
society. The action of 2nd party terminating his services
from 1.5.95 amounts to retrenchment. As he was not served
one months notice, he was not paid one months pay in lieu
of notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
The termination of his service is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act on such ground, workman alleged unfair
labour practice on part of 2nd party that policy of hire and
fire is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 8/1 to
8/4 opposing claim of the workman preliminary objection is
raised by management that reference is not tenable as
workman was never engaged against sanctioned post.
Workman as engaged on daily wages. Such engagement
comes to end at end of day. There is master servant relation.
Workman is not covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act.
4. 2nd party denies that workman was engage against
vacant post or he worked continuously more than 24 days.
That as per negotiated settlement with the Bank, the casual
labour is engaged for contingency is authorized. Article
14, 6 of Constitution are not violated. Claim of workman is
erroneous based on assumptions and misunderstanding.
2nd party has not violated any statutory provisions. Unfair
labour practice on part of 2nd party is denied. For last 10
years, Bank is sustaining loss due to low productivity and
employment of manpower is stopped. 2nd party submits
that reference be answered in its favour.
5. Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 9/1 to 9/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
“(i) Whether the termination of
services of Shri Mohanlal
Sahu, S/o Hemlal Sahu, Ex-
In Affirmative
casual employee of Khak
branch, Bhilai of UCO Bank
by the management of the
bank w.e.f. 1.5.97 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F (a, b, c) of ID Act. Workman
filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions
that he was working with the Bank from 28.8.93 to 1.5.97.
His services were terminated without notice. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. He completed more than
240 days continuous service. In his cross-examination,
workman says he was working in 2nd party Bank from
28.8.93. He not submitted application to the Bank. He did
not receive appointment letter. He was engaged as casual
labour on daily wages. He was paid wages as daily wager.
No attendance register was maintained. Payment sheet was
also not maintained. He worked till 1.5.97. Termination order
not issued to him.
8. Management's witness Shri Chabilal filed affidavit
of his evidence that while working as Head cashier from
July, 92 to December, 96, he says that Mohanlal was never
employed as messenger, there was not vacancy of
messenger. There was no notification about the vacancies.
Workman was never appointed in regular vacancy. There
is no relationship of master servant. Workman had not
continuously worked more than 240 days. In his cross-
examination, witness of management says he was working
in the Bank from 28.8.93 to 1.5.97. During said period,
workman was working. Witness of management has not
said that workman was continuously working during above
said period. Workman was doing work of pen. Workman
was not given termination order, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him evidence of workman is
not supported by any document. Workman has not
examined any co-worked, he has not produced
documentary evidence about payment of wages. The
evidence of workman is in nature of self declaration. Such
evidence is not sufficient to establish that workman worked
continously for more than 240 days during any of the
calendar year. Therefore workman is not covered under
Section 25-F of ID Act. That is not entitled to benefit under
Section 25-F of ID Act.
9. Advocate Vijay Tripathi relies on ratio held in
Case of Ramesh Kumar versus State of Haryana
reported in 2010(2) SCC 543. Their Lordship dealing with
Section 25-F of ID Act applicability of casual employees
held in case of termination of casual employee what is
required to see is whether he has completed 240 days
continuous service in preceding 12 months or not.
In present case, evidence of workman discussed
cannot establish his continuous working for more than 240
days during any of the calendar year. Therefore ratio held
in the case cannot be applied to case at hand. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The termination of services of Shri Mohanlal Sahu,
S/o Hemlal Sahu, Ex-casual employee of Khak branch,
Bhilai of UCO Bank by the management of the bank
w.e.f. 1.5.97 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1918.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 126@1994½dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@436@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3975
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1918.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/
1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
30/09/2015.
[No. L- 20012/436/1993-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d)(2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Reference: No. 126/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Dugda Coal
Washery of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :
Shri Ganesh Prasad, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
AWARD
Dated 3/9/2015
By order No. L-20012/436/93/IR (CM-1) dated
13.05.1994 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the Additional Chief Engineer
(E&M) Dugda Coal Washery of M/S. BCCL, P.O-
Dugda, Dist-Bokaro in denying regularization of the
service of Bhagwati Sao Ex-worker with the
management of M/S. BCCL is justified? if not, to
what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?''
2. After receipt of the reference both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award is passed.
Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1919.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@1993½dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@84@1990&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/1993)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
30/09/2015.
[No. L- 20012/84/1990-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d)(2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Reference : No. 69/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Kooridih
Colliery of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT : Sri R. K. Saran Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :
None
For the workman
:
None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:—Coal
AWARD
Dated 2/9/2015
By order No. L-20012/84/90/IR (CM-1) dated
11.02.1993 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
3976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
"Whether the action of the management of Kooridih
Colliery in Govindpur Area of M/S. BCCL, in denying
correction of date of Birth of Manindra Nath Munshi from
18.04.1932 to 18.04.1942 is justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award is passed.
Communicate to the Ministry.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1920.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdkj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 221@2000½dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@253@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 221/
2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
30/09/2015.
[No. L- 20012/253/2000-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S. 10(1) (d)(2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Reference: No. 221/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda
Area, M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT : Sri R.K. Saran Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman
:
Sri N.M. Kumar, Advocate
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
AWARD
Dated 26/8/2015
By order No. L-20012/253/2000/IR (C-1) dated
24/06/2000, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following disputes
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether denial of employment to Sri Pradeep
Thakur dependant Son of Sri Baleshwar Prasad
Thakur, on the ground that he was unfit for under
ground work, by the management of Kusunda Area
of M/s. BCCL and desiring application for
employment from second son of the deceased
employee is justified? If not, what direction into the
matter are necessary?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 07.08.2000. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on
06.02.2001. And the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 22.04.2002. Two witnesses
examined on behalf of the workman and document of
workman marked as W-1 to W-7.
3. The case of the workman is that Sri Balashwer
Prasad was employed at Industry Colliery of M/S. BCCL
on the post of Line Mazdoor. Who was declared medically
unfit for his duties in March 1991. By the Apex Medical
Board under clause of NCWA. The eldest son Sri Pradeep
Thakur applied for his employment and the management
issued letter of employment for job PR UG Minor loader
subject to his physical fitness. He was directed to report to
the Lodna Area for his duties. Thereafter the management
vide letter dated 12.12.95, informed to Sri Baleshwar Prasad,
that his son Pradeep Thakur is medically unfit for surface
work.
4. The case of the management that the provision in
NCWA for giving employment on compassionate ground
was only for the purpose of providing financial assistance
to the family of the employee, who has been declared
medically unfit. This provision does not create legal right
of any particular person.
5. This is the case of dependant employment. The
concerned workman Sri Pradeep was issued appointment
letter dated 23.4.1992 designated as PR UG Miner Loader
in place of medically unfit father Sri Baleshwar Thakur.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3977
6. As per letter dated 12/12/95 marked as W-1, it
appears that the concerned workman Sri Pradeep Thakur
was medically unfit on the surface job, and Sri Baleshwar
Thakur was told that his case will be considered by
competent authority for employment to another son in the
company.
7. In cross-examination of Sri Sadhu Sharan Prasad
(WW-1) Ex-General Secretary of the union, Sri Pradeep
Thakur was appointed for underground job. He was declared
Unfit by medical examination. Management offiered
employment to his next son. But he was not given offer for
employment.
8. But in the Written statement of the management in
para 10 it has been pleaded by the General Manager, that
Sri Pradeep Thakur was examined by the Area Medical
Board and the Area Medical Board declared him medically
fit for surface job on 28/03/1995 and thereafter the Head Qr.
Informed that the designation of Sri Pradeep Thakur has
been changed for Miner/Loader to General Mazdoor on
the surface. But due to want of vacancy in the surface the
Area Management could not able to provide him
employment.
9. The management issued a letter dated 7/7/95 marked
as W-7 in which the workman ordered to change from PR
UG Miner Loader to general mazdoor on surface in Cat-1
with his posting at Kusunda Area.
10. The management is ready to give job to the
dependant of the workman, who would apply for job and
the same be considered by the management
sympathetically. But as per written statement of the
management it is seen, he was fit for surface job. Therefore
the workman be given job at one on surface.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case. I hold that denial of employment to Sri Pradeep Thakur
dependant son of Sri Baleshwar Prasad Thakur, on the
ground that he was unfit for under ground work, by the
management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL and desiring
application for employment from second son of the
deceased employee is not justified. Hence Sri Pradeep
Thakur be given job by the management at once There is
no necessity either he or any one will apply for job.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1921.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xYQ ,vj ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@42@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Gulf
Air and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 30/09/2015.
[No. L-11012/42/2014-IR (CM-1)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 15th September, 2015
PRESENT : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 95/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Gulf Air and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri N. Sivaraman
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Country Manager :
2nd Party/Respondent
Gulf Air
Maker Chamber-V, Ground Floor
Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. Row & Reddy, V.
Stalin, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s. Gupta & Ravi,
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-11012/42/2014-IR (CM-I)
dated 15.10.2014 referred the following Industrail Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s Gulf
Air regarding termination of the service of the
petitioner Sri N. Sivaraman is legal and justified? To
what relief the workman is entitled?"
3978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
2. On receipt of Industrail Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 95/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and
filed their claim and counter statement respectively. The
petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter
Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent
as Station Security Officer-III by order dated 22.08.2005.
His service was confirmed. The petitioner had been
discharing his duty sincerely and honestly. At the time of
termination he was Station Security Officer. The petitioner
was suddenly terminated from service by order dated
21.03.2014. The reason for termination was stated as the
order of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) of Govt.
of India. However, the order does not state that the existing
security personnel have to be terminated. The intention of
the Respondent is to outsource the security work to private
contractors and deprive the permanent employees of their
job. The Respondent is having Offices all over India. The
security personnel employed by the Respondent in Bombay
are not terminated. Those at Cochin were terminated only
two months later to the termination of the petitioner. The
posts at different centres are transferable. The Respondent
has not followed Section-25G of Industrail Disputes Act
while retrenching the petitioner. The Respondent could
have absorbed the petitioner in some other department if
they feared any penal action from BCAS. The action of the
Respondent in termination the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has raised the
dispute in the above background. An order may be passed
holding that the action of the Respondent in terminating
the service of the petitioner is illegal and also directing the
Respondent to reinstate the petitoner with back wages,
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The dispute is not maintainable as the petitioner was
not a workman as defined under Section-2(s) of the
Industrail Disputes Act. The petitioner was Station Security
Officer of the Respondent at Chennai Airport at the time of
termination and was performing duties predominantly
administrative and supervisory in nature, in this capacity.
It is incorrect to state that the Respondent has terminated
the service of the petitioner in order to outsource security
work to private contractors. The BCAS has issued
comprehensive guidlines listing out the guidelines for
performing security functions to be carried out by aircraft
operators by order no. 3/2009. By the said order 13 activities
pertaining to aircraft operations were treated as Aircraft
Operators Aviation Security Functions. These functions
were not allowed to be undertaken by ground handling
agency. These have to be carried out by the concerned
airlines security personnel who possess competency
required to perform the duties and appropriately trained
and certified according to the requirements of the approved
security programme of the respective aircraft operator and
the national civil aviation programme of India. The inline
screening of hold baggage to be transported by aircraft
operator from the airports in India are to be carried out by
trained and BCAS certified screeners of respective airport
operator or NACIL at airports having inline baggage airport
system. As far as foreign airlines like the Respondent are
concerned they may enter into agreement with Indian Air
Carriers having international operations from that airport
only after specific approval from the BCAS. The purport of
such clause in the order is that foreign airlines like the
Respondent are prohibited from engaging their own
personnel for carrying out any security related functions
in Airports. Even though foreign airlines are not allowed to
undertake self handling of security functions, they are
required to appoint Chief Security Officer of India and a
Security Coordinator for each station of operation. These
position holders must obtain required BCAS training.
Reference to foreign airlines in order 3/2014 of AVSEC
relates to only these positions approved in security
programmes of all the foreign airlines operating from Indian
Airports. Consequent to order of 3/2009 the Respondent is
not permitted to do self handling of security functions at
Airports. It is not corrrect to state that the persons working
in Cochin sector are junior to the petitioner. All security
personnel engaged in self handling of security functions
were terminated as the said functions cannot be performed
by a foreign operator. As far as Mumbai is concerned the
security personnel employed at Mumbai Airport had raised
a dispute and the Respondent had entered into a settlement
with a Union representing the said employees pursuant to
which they were re-deployed in other ground handling
operations where there were vacancies. No common
seniority list is maintained for employees of the Respondent
in all the Airports of India. The allegation that the
Respondent has violated Section-25(g) of the ID Act is not
correct. No vacancies are available at Chennai Airport where
the petitioner could be absorbed. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5. In the reply statement the petitioner has reiterated
his case in the Claim Statement and denied the contentions
in the Counter Statement.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to
Ext. W11 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M14.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in termination
of the petitioner from service is legal and justified?
(ii)
To what relief, if any, to which the petitioner is
entitled?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3979
The Points
8. There is no dispute on the facts of the case. The
petitioner who had joined the service of the Respondent
as Station Security Officer-III on 22.08.2005 was terminated
from service vide order dated 21.03.2014 while he was
working as Station Security Officer.
9. The Respondent has justified the termination
stating the BCAS under the Ministry of Civil Aviation,
Government of India had issued an order by which foreign
airlines are prevented from doing aircraft operators aviation
security functions. They were directed to enter into
agreement with agencies who are carrying out such
functions.The stand of the Respondent is that because of
this order the post of Security Officer of the Respondent
had become redundant and they were forced to terminate
the service of the petitioner alongwith another who is
working in the same position. The case of the petitioner is
that termination is not called for even on account of the
order of BCAS. It is contended by the petitioner that the
order does not give a direction to terminate the existing
employees working in the position of Security Officer and
it is only a matter of giving training through one of the
approved training institute. It is contended on behalf of
the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated
in service.
10. A technical contention is seen raised by the
Respondent in the Counter Statement that the petitioner is
not a workman as defined under Section-2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as Station
Security Officer at the time of termination. However, this
contention is not seen pursued by the Respondent. Trial
has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner is a
workman.
11. Another contention raised in the Counter
Statement is that petitioner has received the notice pay
and retrenchment compensation without any protest and
so he is not entitled to raise the dispute. This contention
also is not seen pursued. The counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in
WORKMAN OF SUBONG TEA ESTATE VS. SUBONG
TEA ESTATE AND ANOTHER reported in 1964 1 LLJ 333
where it was held that the acceptance of retrenchment
compensation by the workman could not operate as a bar
so as to prevent him from challenging the validity of the
retrenchment itself. So the fact that the petitioner has
accepted the retrenchement compensation does not
prevent him from raising the dispute.
12. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the retrenchement is bad in law since notice under Section-
9A of ID Act has not been given to the petitioner. According
to the counsel for the Respondent such a contention is
now not available to the petitioner at all in the absence of
any plea in this respect. It is also his stand that in any case
notice under Section-9A of the ID Act is not required in a
case of retrenchment.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to
certain legal pronouncements in support of his contention
that notice under Section-9A should have been given to
the petitioner in the absence of which retrenchment is
not valid as per law. He has referred to the decision in
LIC OF INDIA Vs. D.J. BAHADUR AND OTHERS
reported in 1981 1 SCC 315 wherein it has been held that
when change is being made in the service conditions of
workman notice should be given. Reference is also made
to the decision in the WORKMEN OF FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION
OF INDIA reported in 1985 2 LLJ 4 where it was held that
when an attempt is made to bring about cessation of
contract of employment between the workman and the
management and a fresh contract between the workman
and the contractor was intended also notice under
Section-9A of the Act is required. Another decision relied
upon by counsel for the petitioner is LOKMAT
NEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD. VS. SHANKAR PRASAD
reported in 1999 (6) SCC 275. It was a case where the
management introduced prototype composing machines
resulting in the retrenchment of certain workman. It was
found that the installation of the machine should have
been preceded by a notice under Section-9A to the
workers since the installation of the machines resulted in
retrenchment.
14. The counsel for the Respondent has argued that
the termination of the petitioner did not require a notice
under Section-9A of the Act. He has pointed out that
retrenchment of an employee is not an item in the IV
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. The IVth Schedule
describes conditions of service for change of which notice
is to be given under Section-9A of the Act. The counsel for
the Respondent has referred to the decision in ROBERT D'
SOUZA VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOUTHERN
RAILWAY AND ANOTHER reported in 1982 1 SCC 645 in
this respect. The service of the workman involved in the
case was deemed to have been terminated from the date on
which he absented himself from duty. A contention was
advanced that notice under Section-9A should have been
given before termination. It was held that in order to attract
Section-9A the employer must be desirous of effecting a
change in the conditions of service in respect of any matter
specified in the IV Schedule of the Act. The counsel has
referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in
ASOKAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER reportd in 2009 4 LLN 582
also in this respect. Here it was held that retrenchment is
not mentioned in the IVth Schedule of the Act and so
Section-9A of the Act or its proviso is not applicable to a
case of retrenchment.
15. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to
the decision in WORKMAN OF THE FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION
OF INDIA reported in 1985 2 SCC 136 also in this respect.
3980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
In the Food Corporation of India the system prevalent was
direct payment to the workmen. It was held that on
introduction of system of direct payment by abolishing
contract labour system workman acquired status of direct
workman of the employer and unilateral discontinuance of
direct payment system without workman's consent and
reintroduction of contract labour system treating the
workman as workman of the contractor would amount to
termination of their services which in the absence of
compliance with law in force will be illegal and void. It
cannot be done without giving notice to the workman
under Section-9A of the Act, it was held. This was referred
to by the counsel to point out that only in the case of
change in the service conditions notice under Section-9A
is required. The counsel has referred to the decision of the
Bombay High Court in ARVIND ANAND GAIKWAD VS.
UNI ABEX ALLOY PVT. LTD. reported in 1994 III LLJ 684
also where it was held that notice under Section-9A is not
called for because the employer had not re-organized
business but has closed down a particular section in view
ot the restriction in import. The decision of the Apex Court
in ROBERT D SOUZA's case referred to earlier was relied
upon to enter the finding.
16. On going through the decisions relied upon by
either side, it could be seen that only in cases where there
is to be a change in the conditions of service of the workman
notice need by giving under Section-9A of the Act. The
cases referred to by the petitioner's counsel are all those
wherein change was effected in the service conditions of
the workman. None of them are cases where workmen were
retrenched. In the case of retrenchment the employer is
expected to comply with the conditions prescribed under
Section-25F of the Act only. An attempt has been made by
the counsel for the petitioner to make out that the change
was being effected by the Respondent. According to the
counsel by terminating the service of the petitioner, the
Respondent has been intending to entrust the security
work to outside agencies which according to him would
come under Item-10 of the IVth Schedule of the Act. As per
this item in case of rationalization standardization or
improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to
retrenchment of workmen notice under Section-9A is
required. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that the Respondent has not been trying any
of these in the establishment. It was pointed out by him
that no change of any kind was effected by the Respondent.
Rationalization of an establishment is a re-organization or
organization in order to improve its efficiency. In the present
case the Respondent has not done anything to improve
the efficiency of the establishment resulting in
retrenchment. There was no standardization or
improvement also. The Respondent had to give up the job
of handling of security functions in view of the restriction
imposed by BCAS by Ext. M3 order. It is not on the basis of
any steps taken by the Respondent itself to effect some
change coming under Item-10 of the Schedule of the Act. It
was only because the Respondent was constrained to, it
had to stop handling of security functions by itself. Of
course, it had been argued by the counsel for the petitioner
that in fact there is no such prohibition at all preventing
the petitioner and the other Scurity Officer from handling
the security functions of the Respondent. I do not think
there is any merit in the contention advanced on behald of
the petitioner. I will be referring to this aspect in detail later.
17. In any case as pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent the Schedule of Reference does not contain
the question of violations of Section-9A of the Act and
there is no such plea for the petitioner also. As per the
Schedule of Reference, the dispute is regarding termination
of service of the petitioner only. So the only question to be
considered is whether the termination is valid. The petitioner
has not raised a contention in the Claim Statement that the
termination is not valid in law as it is doen in violation of
Section-9A of the Act. The counsel for the Respondent
has referred to the decision in WORKMEN AND OTHERS
VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. reported in AIR 1984 SC
516 where the Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal
cannot travel beyond the pleadings and arrogate to itself
the power to raise issues which the parties to the reference
are precluded or prohibited from raising. In the above case
the Industrial Tribunal had hedl that the employee is not a
workman though there was agreement between the
employer and the union to the effect that he is a workman
and the question was never raised by the parties. The
counsel has also referred to a decision of the Delhi High
Court in MANAGEMENT OF JOR BAGH VS. WORKMAN
reported in 1997 III LLJ 191 where it was held that it was not
permissible for the Labour Court to have gone to the extent
of making an adjudication upon the question that whether
the dispute fell under Item-11 of Schedule-IV for which
notice under Section 9A of the Act was required to be
served upon the workman in advance before taking any
action for retrenchment. On the reference of retrenchment
the Labour Court had to confine itself on the question
whether the same was legal and justified, it was held. So
the issue validity of notice under Section -9A does not
arise for consideration at all, in the present dispute.
18. Still another contention on behalf of the petitioner
is that the petitioner was discriminated terminating him
from service. According to the petitioner the Respondent
is having offices at Delhi, Bombay, Cochin Trivandum and
Madras. All the employees working at these stations are
working in a single entity i.e. Gulf Air, which is the
Respondent. However, Security personnel employed by
the Respondent in Bombay were not terminated whereas
the petitioner was terminated. This according to the
petitioner is discrimination on the part of the Respondent.
This allegation of discrimination is denied by the
Respondent. According to the Respondent, security
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3981
personnel employed at Bombay Airport raised Industrial
Dispute even prior to any decision on their termination
and during the conciliation proceedings Respondent
entered into a settlement with the union representing the
said employees and it its pursuant to this the security
personnel at Bombay were re-deployed in other ground
handling operations where there were vacancies. It is further
stated by the Respondent that the question of comparing
security personnel employed in other airports does not
arise as no common seniority list is maintained.
19. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
decision in THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT BRANCH
PRESS AND ANOTHER VS. D.B. BELIAPPA reported in
1979 1 SCC 477 to fortify his argument on discrimination. It
is a case where the concerned workman alone was
dismissed while others in his group had been retained and
were allowed to continue in service. It was held that no
special circumstance or reason has been disclosed which
would justify discriminatory treatment to the concerned
workman as a class apart from his juniors who have been
retained in service. In the circumstance, the direction to
reinstate the petitioner in service has been upheld.
20. In the present case, is there any discrimination so
far as the petitioner is concerned? It is the specific case of
the Respondent that there is no common seniority list for
the security personnel working for the Respondent at
different places and persons working in each centres were
treated separately. It is apparent from the evidence of the
petitioner itself that there was no such common seniority
list of treatment of security personnel as a class for all the
centres together. The petitioner has stated in his cross-
examination that after his appointment in 1984 he had
continued to work in Chennai only and had no occasion to
work anywhere. MW1 has stated that no common seniority
list is maintained. The petitioner has not proved that all the
security personnel were treated together and they were
amenable for transfer from one place to another. Any
incident of transfer among the security personnel from one
centre to another has not been brought to notice also. So
the manner in which the security personnel at Mumbai
were treated could not be a reason to consider the treatment
of the petitioner as discrimination. The circumstance under
which the security personnel at Bombay were retained is
stated in the Counter Statement as well as in the evidence
of MW1. It is apparent from the contention of the petitioner
itself that the security personnel at Bombay also were not
allowed to continue in service as security personnel but
they were re-deployed in ground handling activities.
According to the Respondent, at Chennai only two security
personnel are available and the number of employees are
limited. There was no vacancy to employ them in other
areas. So the case of discrimination put forth by the
petitioner also could not be accepted.
21. Another contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is that the persons working in Cochin under the
Respondent as security personnel are junior to the
petitioner but they were terminated only two months later
to the petitioner and therefore the Respondent has not
followed Section-25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. For
one thing, it is not proved by the petitioner that he security
personnel at Cochin are junior to the petitioner. Again since
there is no common seniority list there could not be
violation of Section-25G of the industrial Disputes Act.
22. It is pointed out by the Respondent that it was
because of the enevitable contingency that the petitioner
had to be terminated from service. Ext.M3 is the order of
BCAS dated 21.08.2009 alongwith corrigendum dated
03.02.2014. As per the order the Bureau has referred to 13
activities pertaining to aircraft operations to be treated as
Aircraft Operators Aviation Security Functions. As per
Clause-4 of this, foreign airlines are to enter into agreement
with Indian Air Carriers having international operation from
the respective airport only after specific approval from the
Bureau. By the corrigendum of 2014 some change was made
in the clause and foreign airlines were allowed to enter into
agreement with Indian Air Carriers having operation from
the airport and the concerned foreign airline is to inform
the Bureau regarding the arrangement. Even after the order
of 2008 preventing foreign airlines from directly handling
security operations the Respondent continued to handle
the security functions by itself with the petitioner and
another as employees. It seems the Bureau has been taking
steps against this. The Respondent has produced several
communications from the BCAS in this respect. Ext.M5 is
one such communication issued to the Chief Security
Officer, British Airways Ltd. This was in response to the
letter by the British Airways for approval of the aircraft
operator's security program. This states that as per the
order of 2009 foreign airlines are to enter into contract with
Indian Air Carriers for security functions and the order
does not authorize any foreign airlines to self-handle the
security functions. Ext.M6 is a fax message from the BCAS
issued in 2012 stating that it has come to the notice of the
Bureau that foreign airlines are allowed to do self-handling
at airports violating the order of 2009 and action is to be
taken in the light of the order. Ext. M7 is also regarding the
implementation of the order. Ext. M8 also is a communication
issued to the Airport Directors stating that the practice of
self-handling at airpots in violation of the order of 2009
should be stopped with immediate effect. The Directors
are instructed to furnish the names of those foreign airlines
which are self-handling security functions. Ext.M10 is a
letter from the BCAS to the Respondent returning the
security program submitted by the Respondent. This
reiterates that as per the order of 2009 foreign airlines are
not allowed to do self-handling of the security functions.
It is further stated that the foreign airlines may enter into
contract with Indian Air Carriers having international
operations from the Airport.
3982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
23. MW1 has stated that it is in view of the order of
the BCAS that the petitioner had to be terminated from
service. It is stated by MW1 in the affidavit that even after
the order of 2009 the petitioner was not immediately
terminated from service but the matter was dragged on for
a long time. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that it shows the bonafides of the Respondent
and the attempt of the Respondent to retain the petitioner
in service in spite of the order. It was only when action was
recommended the petitioner had been terminated. This
stand of the Respondent seems to be correct. Even after
the order of the Bureau, the petitioner had continued in
service for quite a number of years.
24. The petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement
that as per the corrigendum of 2014 the organizations which
have not established their own training institute shall
deploy their security staff to carry out allocated security
functions for their respective organizations only after they
are trained in one of the BCAS approved training institution
and certified by the BCAS. This part of the order was
quoted by the petitioner to state that the existing staff
need not be disengaged but can be retained. It is pointed
out on behalf of the Respondent that even though foreign
airlines are nto allowed to handle security functions by
themselves they are required to appoint Chief Security
Officer and a Security Coordinator for each station of
operation and these position holders must obtain the
required training. The reference to training in the order of
2014 is only regarding Chief security Officer and Security
Coordinator, it is pointed out. The petitioner had made
three attempts to clear the BCAS Certification Course but
had not succeeded, as stated by MW1. So he would not fit
in with the requirements of the BCAS, in any case.
25. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that the orders of BCAS are not challenged
and they are binding on the petitioner. The counsel has
referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in
INDIAN COMMERCIAL PILOTS ASSOCIATION VS.
UNION OF INDIA reported in 2006 4 MLJ 289 where it was
held that a circular issued by the Central Government under
the Aircraft Rules is not ultra-vires. So the order of the
BCAS is binding on the petitioner as well as on the
Respondent. It was only because of the order the
Respondent had to terminate the service of the petitioner.
In this respect the counsel for the Respondent has referred
to the decision WORKMAN OF SUBONG TEA ESTATE
VS. SUBONG TEA ESTATE AND ANOTHER (referred to
earlier) where it was held that the management can retrench
its employees but for proper reasons and it is for the
industrial adjudicator to consider whethere the
retrenchment was justified for proper reasons. It cannot be
said that the retrenchment of the petitioner is without
justification. Though, not on account of any fault of the
petitioner the retrenchment was necessitated because of
inevitability of the circumstances.
26. The petitioner has stated that if the Respondent
feared penal action from the BCAS it could have absorbed
the petitioner in another department. It is pointed out that
this is what was done in the case of security personnel in
Bombay. The stand of the Respondent is that no vacancy
was available in any of the positions. This implies that if
there is any vacancy in which the petitioner could be fitted
with his qualification and experience he would have been
re-deployed to that position. This can be done by the
Respondent even now. Section-25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act states that where any workmen are retrenched
and the employer proposes to take into his employ any
person he can given an opportunity to the retrenched
workman to offer themselves for reemployment and such
workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall
have preference over other persons. The petitioner has
offered himself to be employed in the Respondent
establishment, even at centres other than Chennai. In case
any vacancy suitable in accordance with the qualification
and experience of the petitioner arises the Respondent can
re-employ the petitioner in that vacancy. The petitioner
was terminated by order dated 21.03.2014. More than a
year has elapsed after this. The Respondent shall consider
re-employment of the petitioner without delay.
Accordingly an award is passed as follows:
The Respondent is directed to give-reemployment
to the petitioner in vacancy to which he will fit in one on
the basis of his qualification and experience. The reference
is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW1, Sri N. Sivaraman
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1,
Capt.
Surinder
Khajuria
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
21.06.2009
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
Order No. 03/2009
Ext.W2
25.08.1994
Confirmation Order issued to
petitioner
Ext.W3
21.03.2014
Termination order issued to
petitioner
Ext.W4
03.04.2014
Dispute raised by the petitioner
before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central)
Ext.W5
07.05.2014
Certificate issued by the
Respondent
Ext.W6
16.06.2014
Reply filed by the Respondent
before ALC with annexure
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3983
Ext.W7
18.06.2014
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
Order No. 03/2014
Ext.W8
01.07.2014
Reply filed by the petitioner
before ALC
Ext.W9
27.08.2014
Reply filed by the Respondent
before ALC Identity Card,
Certificates
Ext.W10
-
Ext.W11
10.12.2014
Section 12(3) settlement between
Respondent and the Gulf Air
Employees Association
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
27.03.2001
AVSEC Order No. 3 of 2001
Ext.M2
28.08.2006
AVSEC Order No. 16 of 2006
Ext.M3
21.08.2009
AVSEC Order No. 3 of 2009 with
corrigendum dated 03.02.2014
Ext.M4
2011-2012
Basic AVSEC held at RDCOS
Chennai
Ext.M5
30.04.2012
Approval of the Aircraft Operating
Security Programme of M/s British
Airways Ltd., approved by BCAS
Ext.M6
13.07.2012
Fax message from BCAS to all
RDCOS, BCAS regarding
implementation of AVSEC Order
No. 3 of 2009
Ext.M7
03.08.2012
Communication from BCAS to
Station Manager, Gulf Air,
Mumbai
in
regard
to
implementation of AVSEC order
No. 3/2009
Ext.M8
07.08.2012
BCAS Notice to all the Airport
Directors, AAI, CIAC and AOC
in regard to implementation of
AVSEC order 3/2009
Ext.M9
13.08.2012
Approval of the Aircraft Operators
Security Programme of M/s Sri
Lankan Airline by BCAS
Ext.M10
23.08.2012
Notice sent by BCAS to Gulf Air
Ext.M11
13.05.2013
Notice sent by BCAS to Gulf
Airlines Manager (Security),
Chennai
Ext.M12
14.10.2013
Notice sent by BCAS to the
Manager, Gulf Air, Mumbai
Ext.M13
22.10.2013
Notice sent by BCAS to Station
Manager, Gulf Air
Ext.M14
09.01.2014
Notice sent by BCAS to Manager
(Security) Gulf Air Chennai
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1922.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xYQ ,vj ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 94@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y &11012@41@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Gulf
Air and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 30/09/2015.
[No. L-11012/41/2014-IR-(CM-1)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 15th September, 2015
PRESENT : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 94/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Gulf Air and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri A.G. Ravikumar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Country Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Gulf Air
Maker Chamber-V, Ground Floor
Nariman Point
Mumbai
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. Row & Reddy,
V. Stalin, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
: M/s Gupta & Ravi,
Advocates
3984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-11012/41/2014-IR (CM-I)
dated 15.10.2014 referred the following Industrail Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Gulf
Air regarding termination of the service of the
petitioner Shri A.G. Ravi Kumar is legal and justified?
to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of Industrail Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 94/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and
filed their claim and counter statement respectively. The
petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter
Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent
as Acting Station Security Officer by order dated
17.05.1994. His service was confirmed. on 25.8.1994.
The petitioner had been discharing his duty sincerely
and honestly. At the time of termination he was
Station Security Officer-II. The petitioner was
suddenly terminated from service by order dated
21.03.2014. The reason for termination was stated as
the order of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS)
of Govt. of India. However, the order does not state
that the existing security personnel have to be
terminated. The intention of the Respondent is to
outsource the security work to private contractors
and deprive the permanent employees of their job.
The Respondent is having Offices all over India. The
security personnel employed by the Respondent in
Bombay are not terminated. Those at Cochin were
terminated only two months later to the termination
of the petitioner. The posts at different centres are
transferable. The Respondent has not followed
Section-25G of Industrail Disputes Act while
retrenching the petitioner. The Respondent could
have absorbed the petitioner in some other
department if they feared any penal action from
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. The action of the
Respondent in termination the petitioner is illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has
raised the dispute in the above background. An order
may be passed holding that the action of the
Respondent in terminating the service of the
petitioner is illegal and also directing the Respondent
to reinstate the petitoner with back wages, continuity
of service and other attendant benefits.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The dispute is not maintainable as the petitioner was
not a workman as defined under Section-2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner was Station
Security Officer of the Respondent at Chennai Airport
at the time of termination and was performing duties
predominantly administrative and supervisory in
nature, in this capacity. It is incorrect to state that
the Respondent has terminated the service of the
petitioner in order to outsource security work to
private contractors. The BCAS has issued
comprehensive guidelines listing out the guidelines
for performing security functions to be carried out
by aircraft operators by order No. 3/2009. By the said
order 13 activities pertaining to aircraft operations
were treated as Aircraft Operators Aviation Security
Functions. These functions were not allowed to be
undertaken by ground handling agency. These have
to be carried out by the concerned airlines security
personnel who possess competency required to
perform the duties and appropriately trained and
certified according to the requirements of the
approved security programme of the respective
aircraft operator and the national civil aviation
programme of India. The inline screening of hold
baggage to be transported by aircraft operator from
the airports in India are to be carried out by trained
and BCAS certified screeners of respective airport
operator or National Aviation Corporation of India
Ltd. at airports having inline baggage airport system.
As far as foreign airlines like the Respondent are
concerned they may enter into agreement with Indian
Air Carriers having international operations from that
airport only after specific approval from the BCAS.
The purport of such clause in the order is that foreign
airlines like the Respondent are prohibited from
engaging their own personnel for carrying out any
security related functions in Airports. Even though
foreign airlines are not allowed to undertake self
handling of security functions, they are required to
appoint Chief Security Officer-India and a Security
Coordinator for each station of operation. These
position holders must obtain required BCAS training.
Reference to foreign airlines in order 3/2014 of AVSEC
relates to only these positions approved in security
programmes of all the foreign airlines operating from
Indian Airports. Consequent to order of 3/2009 the
Respondent is not permitted to do self handling of
security functions at Airports. It is not corrrect to
state that the persons working in Cochin sector are
junior to the petitioner. All security personnel
engaged in self handling of security functions were
terminated as the said functions cannot be performed
by a foreign operator. As far as Mumbai is concerned
the security personnel employed at Mumbai Airport
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3985
had raised a dispute and the Respondent had entered
into a settlement with a Union representing the said
employees pursuant to which they were re-deployed
in other ground handling operations where there were
vacancies. No common seniority list is maintained
for employees of the Respondent in all the Airports
of India. The allegation that the Respondent has
violated Section-25(g) of the ID Act is not correct.
No vacancies are available at Chennai Airport where
the petitioner could be absorbed. The petitioner is
not entitled to any relief.
5. In the reply statement the petitioner has reiterated
his case in the Claim Statement and denied the contentions
in the Counter Statement.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to
Ext. W11 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M13.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in termination
of the petitioner from service is legal and justified?
(ii)
To what relief, if any, to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8. There is no dispute on the facts of the case. The
petitioner who had joined the service of the Respondent
as Station Security Officer in the year 1994 was terminated
from service vide order dated 21.03.2014 while he was
working as Station Security Officer.
9. The Respondent has justified the termination
stating the BCAS under the Ministry of Civil Aviation,
Government of India had issued an order by which foreign
airlines are prevented from doing aircraft operators aviation
security functions. They were directed to enter into
agreement with agencies who are carrying out such
functions. The stand of the Respondent is that because of
this order the post of Security Officer of the Respondent
had become redundant and they were forced to terminate
the service of the petitioner alongwith another who is
working in the same position. The case of the petitioner is
that termination is not called for even on account of the
order of BCAS. It is contended by the petitioner that the
order does not give a direction to terminate the existing
employees working in the position of Security Officer and
it is only a matter of giving training through one of the
approved training institute. It is contended on behalf of
the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated
in service.
10. A technical contention is seen raised by the
Respondent in the Counter Statement that the petitioner is
not a workman as defined under Section-2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as Station
Security Officer at the time of termination. However, this
contention is not seen pursued by the Respondent. Trial
has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner is a
workman.
11. Another contention raised in the Counter
Statement is that petitioner has received the notice pay
and retrenchment compensation without any protest and
so he is not entitled to raise the dispute. This contention
also is not seen pursued. The counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Workman
of Subong Tea Estate vs. Subong Tea Estate and another
reported in 1964 1 LLJ 333 where it was held that the
acceptance of retrenchment compensation by the workman
could not operate as a bar so as to prevent him from
challenging the validity of the retrenchment itself. So the
fact that the petitioner has accepted the retrenchement
compensation does not prevent him from raising the
dispute.
12. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
retrenchement is bad in law since notice under Section-9A
of ID Act has not been given to the petitioner. According
to the counsel for the Respondent such a contention is
now not available to the petitioner at all in the absence of
any plea in this respect. It is also his stand that in any case
notice under Section-9A of the ID Act is not required in a
case of retrenchment.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to
certain legal pronouncements in support of his contention
that notice under Section-9A should have been given to
the petitioner in the absence of which retrenchment is not
valid as per law. He has referred to the decision in LIC of
India vs. D.J. Bahadur and Others reported in 1981 1 SCC
315 wherein it has been held that when change is being
made in the service conditions of workman notice should
be given. Reference is also made to the decision in the
Workmen of Food Corporation of India Vs. Food
Corporation of India reported in 1985 2 LLJ 4 where it was
held that when an attempt is made to bring about cessation
of contract of employment between the workman and the
management and a fresh contract between the workman
and the contractor was intended also notice under Section-
9A of the Act is required. Another decision relied upon by
counsel for the petitioner is Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Shankar Prasad reported in 1999 (6) SCC 275. It was a
case where the management introduced prototype
composing machines resulting in the retrenchment of
certain workman. It was found that the installation of the
machine should have been preceded by a notice under
Section-9A to the workers since the installation of the
machines resulted in retrenchment.
14. The counsel for the Respondent has argued that
the termination of the petitioner did not require a notice
under Section-9A of the Act. He has pointed out that
3986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
retrenchment of an employee is not an item in the IV
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. The IVth Schedule
describes conditions of service for change of which notice
is to be given under Section-9A of the Act. The counsel for
the Respondent has referred to the decision in Robert D'
Souza vs Executive Engineer, Southern Railway And
Another reported in 1982 1 SCC 645 in this respect. The
service of the workman involved in the case was deemed
to have been terminated from the date on which he absented
himself from duty. A contention was advanced that notice
under Section-9A should have been given before
termination. It was held that in order to attract Section-9A
the employer must be desirous of effecting a change in the
conditions of service in respect of any matter specified in
the IV Schedule of the Act. The counsel has referred to the
decision of the Madras High Court in Asokan vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Another reportd in
2009 4 LLN 582 also in this respect. Here it was held that
retrenchment is not mentioned in the IVth Schedule of the
Act and so Section-9A of the Act or its proviso is not
applicable to a case of retrenchment.
15. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to
the decision in Workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs. Food Corporation of India reported in 1985 2 SCC 136
also in this respect. In the Food Corporation of India the
system prevalent was direct payment to the workmen. It
was held that on introduction of system of direct payment
by abolishing contract labour system workman acquired
status of direct workman of the employer and unilateral
discontinuance of direct payment system without
workman's consent and reintroduction of contract labour
system treating the workman as workman of the contractor
would amount to termination of their services which in the
absence of compliance with law in force will be illegal and
void. It cannot be done without giving notice to the
workman under Section-9A of the Act, it was held. This
was referred to by the counsel to point out that only in the
case of change in the service conditions notice under
Section-9A is required. The counsel has referred to the
decision of the Bombay High Court in Arvind Anand
Gaikwad vs. Uni Abex Alloy Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1994 III
LLJ 684 also where it was held that notice under Section-
9A is not called for because the employer had not re-
organized business but has closed down a particular
section in view of the restriction in import. The decision of
the Apex Court in ROBERT D' SOUZA's case referred to
earlier was relied upon to enter the finding.
16. On going through the decisions relied upon by
either side, it could be seen that only in cases where there
is to be a change in the conditions of service of the workman
notice need by giving under Section-9A of the Act. The
cases referred to by the petitioner's counsel are all those
wherein change was effected in the service conditions of
the workman. None of them are cases where workmen were
retrenched. In the case of retrenchment the employer is
expected to comply with the conditions prescribed under
Section-25F of the Act only. An attempt has been made by
the counsel for the petitioner to make out that the change
was being effected by the Respondent. According to the
counsel by terminating the service of the petitioner, the
Respondent has been intending to entrust the security
work to outside agencies which according to him would
come under Item-10 of the IVth Schedule of the Act. As per
this item in case of rationalization standardization or
improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to
retrenchment of workmen notice under Section-9A is
required. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that the Respondent has not been trying any
of these in the establishment. It was pointed out by him
that no change of any kind was effected by the Respondent.
Rationalization of an establishment is a re-organization or
organization in order to improve its efficiency. In the present
case the Respondent has not done anything to improve the
efficiency of the establishment resulting in retrenchment.
There was no standardization or improvement also. The
Respondent had to give up the job of handling of security
functions in view of the restriction imposed by BCAS by
Ext. M3 order. It is not on the basis of any steps taken by the
Respondent itself to effect some change coming under
Item-10 of the Schedule of the Act. It was only because the
Respondent was constrained to, it had to stop handling of
security functions by itself. Of course, it had been argued
by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact there is no
such prohibition at all preventing the petitioner and the
other Scurity Officer from handling the security functions
of the Respondent. I do not think there is any merit in the
contention advanced on behald of the petitioner. I will be
referring to this aspect in details later.
17. In any case as pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent the Schedule of Reference does not contain
the question of violations of Section-9A of the Act and
there is no such plea for the petitioner also. As per the
Schedule of Reference, the dispute is regarding termination
of service of the petitioner only. So the only question to be
considered is whether the termination is valid. The petitioner
has not raised a contention in the Claim Statement that the
termination is not valid in law as it is done in violation of
Section-9A of the Act. The counsel for the Respondent
has referred to the decision in Workmen And Others vs.
Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 516 where
the Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal cannot travel
beyond the pleadings and arrogate to itself the power to
raise issues which the parties to the reference are precluded
or prohibited from raising. In the above case the Industrial
Tribunal had held that the employee is not workman though
there was agreement between the employer and the union
to the effect that he is a workman and the question was
never raised by the parties. The counsel has also referred
to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Management of Jor
Bagh Vs. Workman reported in 1997 III LLJ 191 where it
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3987
was held that it was not permissible for the Labour Court to
have gone to the extent of making an adjudication upon
the question that whether the dispute fell under Item-11 of
Schedule-IV for which notice under Section 9A of the Act
was required to be served upon the workman in advance
before taking any action for retrenchment. On the reference
of retrenchment the Labour Court had to confine itself on
the question whether the same was legal and justified, it
was held. So the issue validity of notice under Section -9A
does not arise for consideration at all, in the present dispute.
18. Still another contention on behalf of the petitioner
is that the petitioner was discriminated terminating him
from service. According to the petitioner the Respondent
is having offices at Delhi, Bombay, Cochin Trivandrum
and Madras. All the employees working at these stations
are working in a single entity i.e. Gulf Air, which is the
Respondent. However, Security personnel employed by
the Respondent in Bombay were not terminated whereas
the petitioner was terminated. This according to the
petitioner is discrimination on the part of the Respondent.
This allegation of discrimination is denied by the
Respondent. According to the Respondent, security
personnel employed at Bombay Airport raised Industrial
Dispute even prior to any decision on their termination
and during the conciliation proceedings Respondent
entered into a settlement with the union representing the
said employees and it is pursuant to this the security
personnel at Bombay were re-deployed in other ground
handling operations where there were vacancies. It is further
stated by the Respondent that the question of comparing
security personnel employed in other airports does not
arise as no common seniority list is maintained.
19. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
decision in The Manager, Government Branch Press and
Another vs. D.B. Beliappa reported in 1979 1 SCC 477 to
fortify his argument on discrimination. It is a case where
the concerned workman alone was dismissed while others
in this group had been retained and were allowed to
continue in service. It was held that no special circumstance
or reason has been disclosed which would justify
discriminatory treatment to the concerned workman as a
class apart from his juniors who have been retained in
service. In the circumstance, the direction to reinstate the
petitioner in service has been upheld.
20. In the present case, is there any discrimination so
far as the petitioner is concerned? It is the specific case of
the Respondent that there is no common seniority list for
the security personnel working for the Respondent at
different places and persons working in each centres were
treated separately. It is apparent from the evidence of the
petitioner itself that there was no such common seniority
list of treatment of security personnel as a class for all the
centres together. The petitioner has stated in his cross-
examination that after his appointment in 1984 he had
continued to work in Chennai only and had no occasion to
work anywhere. MW1 has stated that no common seniority
list is maintained. The petitioner has not proved that all the
security personnel were treated together and they were
amenable for transfer from one place to another. Any
incident of transfer among the security personnel from one
centre to another has not been brought to notice also. So
the manner in which the security personnel at Mumbai
were treated could not be a reason to consider the treatment
of the petitioner as discrimination. The circumstance under
which the security personnel at Bombay were retained is
stated in the Counter Statement as well as in the evidence
of MW1. It is apparent from the contention of the petitioner
itself that the security personnel at Bombay also were not
allowed to continue in service as security personnel but
they are re-deployed in ground handling activities.
According to the Respondent, at Chennai only two security
personnel are available and the number of employees are
limited. There was no vacancy to employe them in other
areas. So the case of discrimination put forth by the
petitioner also could not be accepted.
21. Another contention raised on behalf of the
peitioner is that the persons working in Cochin under the
Respondent as security personnel are junior to the
petitioner but they were terminated only two months later
to the petitioner and therefore the Respondent has not
followed Section-25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. For
one thing, it is not proved by the petitioner that he security
personnel at Cochin are junior to the petitioner. Again since
there is no common seniority list there could not be
violation of Section-25G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
22 It is pointed out by the Respondent that it was
because of the inevitable contingency that the petitioner
had to be terminated from service. Ext. M3 is the order of
BCAS dated 21.08.2009 alongwith corrigendum dated
03.02.2014. As per the order the Bureau has referred to 13
activities pertaining to aircraft operations to be treated as
Aircraft Operators Aviation Security Functions. As per
Clause-4 of this, foreign airlines are to enter into agreement
with Indian Air Carriers having international operation from
the respective airport only after specific approval from the
Bureau. By the corrigendum of 2014 some change was made
in the clause and foreign airlines were allowed to enter into
agreement with Indian Air Carriers having operation from
the airport and the concerned foreign airline is to inform
the Bureau regarding the arrangement. Even after the order
of 2008 preventing foreign airlines from directly handling
security operations the Respondent continued to handle
the security functions by itself with the petitioner and
another as employees. It seems the Bureau has been taking
steps against this. The Respondent has produced several
communications from the BCAS in this respect. Ext. M5 is
one such communication issued to the Chief Security
Officer British Airways Ltd. This was in response to the
letter by the British Airways for approval of the aircraft
3988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 3, 2015/ASVINA 11, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
operator's security programme. This states that as per the
order of 2009 foreign airlines are to enter into contract with
Indian Air Carriers for security functions and the order
does not authorize any foreign airlines to self-handle the
security functions. Ext. M6 is a fax message from the BCAS
issued in 2012 stating that it has come to the notice of the
Bureau that foreign airlines are allowed to do self-handling
at airports violating the order of 2009 and action is to be
taken in the light of the order. Ext. M7 is also regarding the
implementation of the order. Ext M8 also is a communication
issued to the Airport Directors stating that the practice of
self-handling at airports in violation of the order of 2009
should be stopped with immediate effect. The Directors
are instructed to furnish the names of those foreign airlines
which are self-handling security functions. Ext M10 is a
letter from the BCAS to the Respondent returning the
security program submitted by the Respondent. This
reiterates that as per the order of 2009 foreign airlines are
not allowed to do self-handling of the security functions.
It is further stated that the Foreign airlines may enter into
contract with Indian Air Carriers having international
operations from the Airport.
23. MW1 has stated that it is in view of the order of
the BCAS that the petitioner had to be terminated from
service. It is stated by MW1 in the affidavit that even after
the order of 2009 the petitioner was not immediately
terminated from service but the matter was dragged on for
a long time. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that it shows the bonafides of the Respondent
and the attempt of the Respondent to retain the petitioner
in service in spite of the order. It was only when action was
recommended the petitioner had been terminated. This
stand of the Respondent seems to be correct. Even after
the order of the Bureau, the petitioner had continued in
service for quite a number of years.
24. The petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement
that as per the corrigendum of 2014 the organizations which
have not established their own training institute shall
deploy their security staff to carry out allocated security
functions for the respective organizations only after they
are trained in one of the BCAS approved training institution
and certified by the BCAS. This part of the order was
quoted by the petitioner to state that the existing staff
need not be disengaged but can be retained. It is pointed
out on behalf of the Respondent that even though foreign
airlines are not allowed to handle security functions by
themselves they are required to appoint Chief Security
Officer and a Security Coordinator for each station of
operation and these position holders must obtain the
required training. The reference to training in the order of
2014 is only regarding Chief Security Officer and Security
Coordinator, It is pointed out. The petitioner had made
three attempts to clear the BCAS Certification Course but
had not succeeded, as stated by him during the cross
examination. So he would not fit in with the requirements
of the BCAS.
25. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that the orders of BCAS are not challenged
and they are binding on the petitioner. The counsel has
referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in
INDIAN COMMERCIAL PILOTS ASSOCIATION VS.
UNION OF INDIA reported in 2006 4 MLJ 289 where it was
held that a circular issued by the Central Government under
the Aircraft Rules is not ultra-vires. So the order of the
BCAS is binding on the petitioner as well as on the
Respondent. It was only because of the order the
Respondent had to terminate the service of the petitioner.
In this respect the counsel for the Respondent has referred
to the decision WORKMAN OF SUBONG TEA ESTATE
VS. SUBONG TEA ESTATE AND ANOTHER (referred to
earlier) where it was held that the management can retrench
its employees but for proper reasons and it is for the
industrial adjudicator to consider where the retrenchment
was justified for proper reasons. It cannot be said that the
retrenchment
of
the
petitioner
is
without
justification.Though, not on account of any fault of the
petitioner the retrenchment was necessitated because of
inevitability of the circumstances.
26. The petitioner has stated that if the Respondent
feared penal action from the BCAS it could have absorbed
the petitioner in another department. It is pointed out that
this is what was done in the case of security personnel in
Bombay. The stand of the Respondent is that no vacancy
was available in any of the positions. This implies that if
there is any vacancy in which the petitioner could be fitted
with his qualification and experience he would have been
re-deployed to that position. This can be done by the
Respondent even now. Section 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act states that where any workmen are retrenched
and the employer proposes to take into his employ any
person he can give an opportunity to the retrenched
workman to offer themselves for re-employment and such
workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall
have preference over other persons. The petitioner has
offered himself to be employed in the Respondent
establishment, even at centres other than Chennai. In case
any vacancy suitable in accordance with the qualification
and experience of the petitioner arises the Respondent can
re-employ the petitioner in that vacancy. The petitioner
was terminated by order dated 21.03.2014. More than a
year has elapsed after this. The Respondent shall consider
re-employment of the petitioner without delay.
Accordingly an award is passed as follows:
The Respondent is directed to give-re-employment
to the petitioner in vacancy to which he will fit in one of the
basis of his qualification and experience. The reference is
answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 3] 2015@vkf'ou 11] 1937
3989
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW1, Sri A.G. Ravi
Kumar
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Capt. Surinder
Khajuria
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
21.06.2009
Bureau of Civil Aviation
Security Order No. 03/2009
Ext.W2
25.08.1994
Confirmation Order issued to
petitioner
Ext.W3
21.03.2014
Termination order issued to
petitioner
Ext.W4
03.04.2014
Dispute raised by the petitioner
before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central)
Ext.W5
07.05.2014
Certificate issued by the
Respondent
Ext.W6
16.06.2014
Reply filed by the Respondent
before ALC with annexure
Ext.W7
18.06.2014
Bureau of Civil Aviation
Security Order No. 03/2014
Ext.W8
26.06.2014
Reply filed by the petitioner
before ALC
Ext.W9
26.08.2014
Reply filed by the Respondent
before ALC
Ext.W10
Identity Card, Certificates
Ext.W11
10.12.2014
Section 12(3) settlement
between Respondent and the
Gulf Air Employees Association
On the Management's side
ExNo.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
27.03.2001
AVSEC Order No. 3 of 2001
Ext.M2
28.08.2006
AVSEC Order No. 16 of 2006
Ext.M3
21.08.2009
AVSEC Order No. 3 of 2009 with
corrigendum dated 03.02.2014
Ext.M4
2011-2012
Basic AVSEC held RDCOS
Chennai
Ext.M5
30.04.2012
Approval of the Aircraft
Operating Security Program of
M/s British Airways Ltd.,
approved by BCAS
Ext.M6
13.07.2012
Fax message from BCAS to all
RDCOS, BCAS regarding
implementation of AVSEC
Order No. 3 of 2009
Ext.M7
03.08.2012
Communication from BCAS to
Station Manager, Gulf Air,
Mumbai
in
regard
to
implementation of AVSEC order
No. 3/2009
Ext.M8
07.08.2012
BCAS Notice to all the Airport
Directors, AAI, CIAC and AOC
in regard to implementation of
AVSEC order 3/2009
Ext.M9
13.08.2012
Approval of the Aircraft
Operators Security Programme
of M/s Sri Lankan Airline by
BCAS
Ext.M10
23.08.2012
Notice sent by BCAS to Gulf
Air
Ext.M11
13.05.2013
Notice sent by BCAS to Gulf
Airlines Manager (Security),
Chennai
Ext.M12
14.10.2013
Notice sent by BCAS to the
Manager, Gulf Air, Mumbai
Ext.M13
22.10.2013
Notice sent by BCAS to Station
Manager, Gulf Air
Ext.M14
09.01.2014
Notice sent by BCAS to
Manager (Security) Gulf Air
Chennai
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.